It stinks.

[non sociopath skin]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jun/11/terrorism.uksecurity

For once, words fail me.

The Skin

[tjwmason]

1. It certainly does stink, and is very saddening.

:(

I think that the quote from John McDonnell was spot-on.

[non sociopath skin]

2. Certainly more pertinent that Cameron's weasel words.

Unless, of course, he's willing to pledge that an incoming Tory government would repeal the legislation.

No sign of that yet.

The Skin

[tjwmason]

11. A pledge from Cameron?

Even with I.D. Cards there's been practically nothing firm said.

[moggie]

3. When you have to suck up to the DUP and UKIP

you've lost the right to call yourself Labour, IMO. And how sickening is it that we have to hope that the fucking Lords can stop this?

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. 3 Labour ex-law officials leading the fight against it there

and meanwhile, Brown needed the DUP, the UKIP MP who is a reject from the Tories, and Widdecombe. For something people say will probably be held to be against human rights law and thus may be unusable. But Brown is trying to look tough to a public far too many of whom don't care properly about human rights.

[LeftishBrit]

4. It stinks all right...

and the political wheeling-dealing stinks to high heaven: "We'll allow you to continue to deny women the right to choose in Northern Ireland if you'll help us lock people up without charge!"

And here's another item of news today:


http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=8561290


The terrorist threat is big enough for them to take away yet more of our civil liberties, but not quite enough for them to ensure that officials act with due care and competence!

[non sociopath skin]

6. Yes, the Guardian has certainly gone downbeat on the story ...

... as the details are revealed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jun/11/terrorism.uksecurity1

Tammany politics at their stomach-churning worst. As Rev. William McCrae might have said up to 24 hours ago "These characters give me the dry boaks."

The Skin

[Anarcho-Socialist]

12. If the report is true about the deal cut with the DUP

then New Labour loses all its credibility to being a feminist-friendly party.

[fedsron2us]

7. Echoes of the late 1970s

Callaghan's government at least had the excuse that it was virtually a minority regime so had little alternative but to cut a deal with the Unionists. I wonder what is Brown's excuse.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. One more thing to add: ministers will be able to dismiss a coroner's jury if they like

unless the Lords stop that too.

Yes, coroners. In future, a minister will be able to interrupt an inquest to kick out the jury, dismiss the coroner and declare the proceedings secret. Why? One reason might be that the soldier, say, lacked body armour, bullets or boots and the coroner was expressing naive disapproval. You can't have a jury hearing a case like that. They might talk. It wouldn't be in the public interest for such matters to get out. Oh no, it would damage confidence in the Government.

Oh, and if the new coroner "misbehaves", he or she can be "revoked" as well. "Misbehaviour" isn't defined but we can assume it would be misbehaviour to criticise ministers or the ministry or suggest the death was somehow avoidable or unnecessary or possibly even undesirable.

Quite a change, that.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/simon-carr/the-sketch-clauses-amendments-and-hot-air-just-how-the-pm-likes-it-844221.html

On this week's showing, any chipolata production line must be less off-putting than Parliament's law factory. The rightful furore over 42 days masked another sinister bit of legislation.

The Foreign Secretary was told to come back early from the Middle East not for yesterday's vote, which he was always going to attend, but because the margin on the previous day's key measure, on coroners' courts, was "tight".

Alas, not tight enough. The Government got its way. So unless the Lords intervenes, "secret" inquests on killings involving the state may be held behind closed doors, by a coroner sitting without a jury. Families may be excluded.

The death of a soldier in Afghanistan or cases such as that of the innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes could qualify. In the case of the dead, it will no longer be axiomatic that justice is seen to be done.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/12/do1201.xml

[Nihil]

9. Wonder if this will apply to "suicides" in custody too?

It would certainly make it easier to tidy up the loose ends if their
internment attempts fail ...

> The counter-terrorism bill would give the police the right to detain
> terrorist suspects without charge for up to 42 days on one-off occasions
> where there was a severe terrorist threat. The current limit is 28 days,
> which is itself a quadrupling of the seven-day limit that existed in 1997.

New Labour ... the party that embraced peace in Northern Ireland
then extended detention without charge six-fold in the mainland.

Up next: Why the Guantanamo project is a successful model for the UK.

:-(

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. It can apply to anything at all

that the Secretary of State (I think this is 'Justice', rather than Home Secretary, but I'm not sertain about that) decides 'in the public interest'.

8A

Certificate requiring inquest to be held without a jury

(1)

The Secretary of State may certify in relation to an inquest that, in the
opinion of the Secretary of State, the inquest will involve the
consideration of material that should not be made public—

(a)

in the interests of national security,

(b)

in the interests of the relationship between the United Kingdom
and another country, or

(c)

otherwise in the public interest.

(2)

A certificate may be issued—

(a)

in relation to an inquest that has not begun, or

(b)

in relation to an inquest that has begun, at any time before its
conclusion.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmbills/063/08063.40-45.html#cor1

I can easily see a government deciding the public inquest into a death in custody being held in secret 'in the public interest' - some guff about 'complicated circumstances' and 'confidence in the police'.

Then we have specially appointed coroners:

18A

Appointment of specially appointed coroners

(1)

If the Secretary of State issues a certificate under section 8A in relation
to an inquest, the Secretary of State may appoint a person (a “specially
appointed coroner”) to hold the inquest.

(2)

A person may not be appointed under this section unless the person—

(a)

is a coroner, or

(b)

would be qualified under section 2(1) to be appointed as
coroner.
...
(2)

If the inquest has begun—

(a)

the specially appointed coroner must proceed in all respects as
if the inquest had not previously begun, and

(b)

the provisions of this Act apply accordingly as if that were the
case.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmbills/063/08063.46-50.html

So, 'in the public interest', they can stop an inquest, start a new, private one with anyone they choose as long as they have the expertise to be a coroner, and ignore anything that happened in the previous inquest.

[ikri]

13. And yet again

We're forced to rely on the unelected House of Lords to reject more horrific legislation.

Even if it gets past the Lords it will likely be ruled illegal by the European courts, thankfully.

I can't believe what this government has turned into, their list of recent "achievements" ranging from this pointless waste of legislation to the proposed criminalization of cartoon porn, their criminalization of extreme porn and their continued support for unworkable ID cards simply beggars belief.

Right now it would take an absolute miracle to get me to vote for them again, besides which voting for them would probably see me accused of being a masochist which will probably have a 5-year minimum sentence by the time this lot are through.

Small footnote, the granuiad served up a rather appropriate book advert with that story.

[Nihil]

15. Isn't it funny ...

... that for all of the "democratic" opposition to the "unelected" House of Lords,
they have been the only thing stopping the New Labour brand of fascism from taking
over the country on several occasions?

Hmmm ... wonder if this was why the idea of an unelected, largely hereditary upper
chamber has survived for so many years? i.e., despite the fact that most of the
previous members achieved their position from hereditary positions, they felt
*obliged* to ensure the continuity of LAW rather than being mercenary creatures
who were promoted solely for their ability to kiss the PM's arse.

:shrug:

[truebrit71]

14. Damn those right-wing fascist bast----oh wait...this was a LABOUR party idea?

...WTF is going on over there?