BS: Blairs first defeat

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 07:03 AM

Mike, you said: "If new Labour continues to lose public support and grass roots support which they are (iraq tax etc)and we conservatives don't put up a credible opposition (in the view of the general public) does this mean the liberals will start gaining eminence by default or that new labour will just continue indefinatly under a new leadership until the status quo becomes untenable".

I think the situation is rapidly becoming untenable for new labour anyway, so I can't see them continuing indefinitely. More likely that the liberals will gain (some) eminence and we will reach the level of Italian politics, with alliances being necessary, and all the bartering and watering down of principles that this means.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 06:50 AM

Hanging????

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 05:12 AM

If Keith had his way the Birmingham 6, The Guilford 4, would all have been hanged, and all of those other innocents that spent upwards to 20 twenty years in jail for crimes they never commmitted.

Remember Keith it was on the word of the English police that these people spent all of those years in jail aided and abetted by Judges who in the words of Paddy Hill one of the Birmigham 6, "could not spell justice".

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Cllr
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 12:36 PM

I started this thread originally to see what people thought the consequences would be of this Bill's defeat.

It wasn't a vote of confidence and it would be unthinkable that a vote of that sort would see the government lose. However given that Blair has said that he would go before the next election ( a mistake to make a statement like that in my book) I wondered if people thought it would trigger the party machine to make it quicker rather than longer till Blair resigns.

I have said for a number of years that the current time table of the british political parties mirrors what happened in the 79 - 97 conservative rule, if Blair is replaced in three years time allowing two years after that for a general election to be called (five yrs being the maximum length) it would match the timing of Thatchers departure in 1990. and the re-election of the party under a new leader for a fourth term.

The two main differences I see is that we (the conservatives) have not started the modernisation process early enough ( Kinnock started the modernisation of the labour party not Tony or even mr smith, and it will be up to Cameron to do it for the Conservatives (if he wins) and secondly Labour seem to be further ahead in replacing the current leader given that Tony ha said he will go at some point and Thatcher didn't.

If new Labour continues to lose public support and grass roots support which they are (iraq tax etc)and we conservatives don't put up a credible opposition (in the view of the general public) does this mean the liberals will start gaining eminence by default or that new labour will just continue indefinatly under a new leadership until the status quo becomes untenable.

The London elections are coming up in about six months and it will be intersting to see what the results are and what pressure that will put into the system. Cllr

I don't mean to distract you from the debate on the bill but it is thread drift which I admit i am also guilty of joining in on.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 12:33 PM

Peter,
I think I see why you made such a mistake about the press.
The "Gutter Press" is overwhelmingly Tory.
You were forgetting that on this issue you have lined up with The Conservative Party.
I imagine that it does take some getting used to!
Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 12:29 PM

Don,
The issue to me is that unfortunately we have to sacrifice a little of our hard won civil liberty, to try to stop our enemies killing us.

You ask where I would draw the line on detention, but how can we judge how long is necessary to be effective.
The police must not be given a free hand, but in this country we have set up independent watch dogs to scrutinise what the police do.

We also have a very independent judiciary. They have repeatedly overturned legislation that this government HAS got through parliament, especially in the areas of immigration and security.

With all those safeguards and with the present level of threat I would have accepted 90 days that the security forces claim to need.

All acedemic since the vote was lost.

Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: GUEST,Redhorse at work
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 08:41 AM

Jon
You at least had he advantage you were told what you were accused of: suspects held for the 90 days would not have had that(security reasons).

nick

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 07:06 PM

I meant not sure how he had the guts.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 07:05 PM

The case was actually solved BTW because someone (not sure he had the guts) came to the police station and said he had been having sex (not rape) with her at the time of the offence.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 07:04 PM

The evidence against you was that wretched girls testimony. The police did not need to trawl through thousands of encrypted computer documents, phone records from many countries etc. etc.

Oh I'm not sure Keith. The only evidence against me was that I was one of few that would have walked some of the same route as the girl. She could not even identify me in an ID parade (but managed to positively ID someone else).

On a much smaller scale, the police did have thier time consuming evidence to trawl through such as searching our house not once but twice...

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 06:41 PM

It seems to me, Keith, that you have become so focussed on a single (admittedly serious and important) issue, as to have failed to think it through to its logical, and dangerous conclusion.

The police are supposedly the experts on all forms of crime detection and prevention.

If we give them the power they seek with respect to this issue, it will be more difficult to refuse the next, and subsequent demands of this type.

Initially, these will most likely be similar latitude in cases of murder and armed robbery, and later extend to less serious crimes.

This is what I mean when I use the term "erosion of civil rights", a gradual wearing down until ultimately we have a truly police state.

When the day comes that they say it is now necessary for all police to be armed, will you still say "let them have that power because they are the experts".

I have asked you several times to state clearly where YOU would draw the line, but you have chosen not to respond.

I will tell you clearly where I draw the line, and it is right here, before the process gets started.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 06:27 PM

By way of clarification, Keith, I don't think I 'demanded' anything - I asked if anyone knew.    You have made the point that the sheer quantity of materials to go thorough is part of the problem. In essence, that was my question: does anyone know if the delay was purely a consequence of that workload or was there an intrinsic reason it took 14 days. An example of what I would consider an intrinsic reason is that various biological tests may need some numbers of days for cultures to grow to a testable level.

To me, this is quite important. If the reason is workload then additional staff, etc, can go some way to addressing it without necessarily doing anything about the detention period. On the other hand, if the testing is intrinsically irreducable (under current knowledge) there is a stronger case for detaining people - or more accurately keeping them under some kind of supervision.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 06:16 PM

And one more thing Peter,

You wrote " just repeating the trash peddled by our wretched press, without giving it a second thought"

The only paper that came out in favour of Blair was The Sun which I have not read in years. (I listen to press reviews on radio)

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 06:00 PM

You had a rough time Jon, but your experience does not apply here.

The evidence against you was that wretched girls testimony. The police did not need to trawl through thousands of encrypted computer documents, phone records from many countries etc. etc.

The police would have to provide enough evidence to convince a judge that you still needed to be held every seven days.

The proposal only applied to terrorist suspects.


Peter I made my plea about being only a teacher when someone demanded that I explain why the bomb disposal team took so long at that address.
How should I know, even with Google.
(I would not want to tell them how to do their job either)

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 03:55 PM

No Don there was no official appology from the police but I suppose in fairness such things have to be investigated and it does sound as if the girl was a pretty good actress.

I suppose a more worrying aspect was that according to my solicitor, the police were convinced they had the right man. Now imagine that sort of "police feeling" (which even in my case involved some buisiness like police having powers to hold me longer than 24hr [I think] as they had reasonable grounds]) that someone is guilty onto this 90 days business...

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Sttaw Legend
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 12:40 PM

100

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 12:33 PM

Peter
You wrote
Would you hang ten people, or even jail them, if you knew that one was truly innocent but you didn't know which one? If you aay yes to that...

Answer no, without hesitation.

We are not discussing hanging or imprisoning, but holding for questioning for a maximum of 90 days, and then only if the police can provide sufficient evidence to convince a judge it is essential for the safety of everyone.

Remember, this is about mass murder on an unprecedented scale.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 12:23 PM

No, I do not accept your dismissal of my comparison.
A surgical procedure and a complex anti terror investigation are both operations that require specialist knowledge and skills.

Persons without any of that knowledge and experience, however important they may think they are, are not well placed to tell those experts how to do it.

I mention again, since it has been ignored, that the senior Liberal Democrat peer, appointed to be an independent advisor on security issues, supported the police on this against his own party and the Conservatives.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 12:10 PM

Keith, you can surely come up with more pertinent examples than those - none of which threaten the human rights of everyone. Would you hang ten people, or even jail them, if you knew that one was truly innocent but you didn't know which one? If you aay yes to that, take it a step farther: you know eight are guilty for certain, but one of the last two is innocent. What then?

Somewhere along the line, balances must be struck. I should think we can all agree about that. In a democracy, finding that balance is the responsibility of elected legislators. As this is something you cannot accept, and you think it is the police who should define the limits of our human rights, you should be arguing that case with whatever evidence you can find. And it's no good saying you're only a suburban schoolteacher. You can Google like anyone else. But just repeating the trash peddled by our wretched press, without giving it a second thought, really is no way to win an argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 12:07 PM

The surgeon quote can be dismissed with three words. Apples and Oranges. We both know that it is not germane to the issue.

In the case of your computer comments, there might be some validity in what you say, so as technology and criminal organisation becomes ever more complex, where do YOU draw the line? 6 months?..... A year?......Life?

It isn't defensible, and I suspect that you know that.

In my experience, the factor which causes most delay in computer communication is keyboard thrombosis (the presence of a static clot at the keys).

Nevertheless, almost any information needed should, by use of IT, be possible to acquire in days rather than weeks, if the will exists to do so. 90 days incarceration is the lazy way IMHO.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 11:48 AM

I found this.

In one case, the material on a computer's hard-drive disc was equal to 60,000 feet when printed out. Equally, the increasingly international nature of terrorist networks posed a greater language difficulty, and a greater need to gather evidence from abroad. Terrorist networks were increasingly complicated, and also, the police had said they needed six to eight weeks to analyse material found in a rubbish dump in Dewsbury. The comparison would have filled eight Olympic sized swimming pools. This was a graphic illustration of the kind of complexities the police now faced when trying to investigate these cases.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 11:38 AM

Firstly,
Don I really did not intend that opening as an attack.
It was meant to be a jokey reply to your concern that judges might be afraid of events proving them wrong.
I was saying look, it does not stop you.
I appologise for the wording.


When someone has been arrested, I imagine that the counter terrorist unit goes as fast as they can against the clock. I can not believe that they run out of time due to laziness or stupidity. Certainly not through ignorance of modern techniques. They need to have IT experts to combat the terrorist use of computers.

Yet they make the odd mistake.
Likewise the medical profession who until very recently believed that stomach ulcers were caused by stress and acid. The treatment was sedatives, antacids and surgery.
They now know that a bacteria is responsible for most and antibiotics are a cure.

I would still consult a doctor rather than a bunch of politicians about cancer treatment.

Also, if the surgeon said he needed an hour to do the operation, and the Parliamentary Tory Party said he should only have twenty minutes, I would shout for the surgeon.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 08:02 AM

Thanks Peter, for both the correction and particularly the link.

It just shows the utter cynicism of our current leaders, and some of our media, and the worst of it is that few citizens will actually see the rebuttal, while the original image will remain with them for a long time.

I too saw Tony's stance on receiving the news (as portrayed for the media), and I thought at the time that it would qualify him for a career at the Old Vic when his political career is over (hopefully very soon).

Jon, that would be a horrible situation for anyone to be in. You have my sympathy. I sincerely hope that you received an abject apology from the police.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 08:01 AM

It is obvious that we see it as vital to deprive people of their precious freedoms in order to see these freedoms are protected.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 07:31 AM

Lasly, 90 days in the nick may seem like nothing when viewed from outside by one who is unlikely ever to be in that position

I don't suppose I'm likely to be in that position but I have been locked up for around 30 hrs accused of a crime that wan't committed by anyone. I was accused of rape when (as we found out when the truth came out) some young girl decided she was not getting enough attention from her parents and that to invent a story that she was attacked on her way home was the way to get it. I can assure you that even for that length of time, being locked up and falsly accused is far from pleasant.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 07:18 AM

Just one tiny point to correct there, Don. The guy didn't even run! I think the inquiry will conclude that the running (and jumping a ticket barrier) was done by a plain-clothes cop.

Those who demand victims' justice and say "ask the survivors" might like to look at http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1639458,00.html .
But maybe you've all seen it already. Sorry - I only heard about it last night.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 06:31 AM

Classic Keith,

When your arguments fail to convince, attack the intelligence, morals, or ethics of your opponent.

My statement was that the first point of attack for police should be to improve the speed at which the required information can be obtained, and that any erosion of civil rights should be avoided except as a very last resort.

If those two are reversed, it would seem that the intention was to gain time for a fishing expedition, something which most judges on both sides of the Atlantic strive to prevent, for very good reasons.

As for your somewhat naive reliance on allowing the "professionals" any powers they ask for, because "they know best", these are the same professionals who recently followed a young man across half of London, before chasing him into a tube station, where they blew him away with gunfire.

His crimes?

1. He came from a building they had under surveillance.
2. He was South American, with a complexion that COULD have been Middle Eastern.
3. He ran to catch a train, or maybe because they scared the s**t out of him. Anyway, he ran.

Ask the parents of Jean de Menezes whether THEY would agree with more powers for police. Their son was deprived of his civil right to go on living by the very people who should have been protecting those rights.

If you feel the need to live under a more repressive regime, the world is full of countries that should be more to your taste than this one.

Lasly, 90 days in the nick may seem like nothing when viewed from outside by one who is unlikely ever to be in that position, but I reckon the thought of it is probably very worrying to anyone with a swarthy skin and a beard, i.e. Muslims, Jews, Hispanics, and a host of other ethnic groups.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 06:18 AM

As for the judges, they are made unsackable to ensure their independence.

Now that is an interesting concept.

If my boss promised me that whatever I did - I would never be sacked - I would be very grateful and would always be sure to always act independently.....

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: ard mhacha
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 06:05 AM

The state has incredibe time saving devices, such as computerised fingerprint-readers and communications monitoring software that outstrip any technology available to their enemies.

In reality, it not so much forensic investigators as ruthless interrogators who are being facilitated by this law.
Extracting information is what it is all about and those who have experienced British interrogation techniques in the north of Ireland are aware, it is a nasty business. Torture is a cruel science. Alternative schools of torture inflict pain. either physical or more importantly psychological, which conceals the evidence. The latter requires more time but cannot be so easily detected by Human rights defenders.

After 28 days with trained and ruthless men you will be aware of every second, certainly not a lifetime Keith, but it will stay with you all of that time.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 02:09 AM

Don,
At any moment a terrorist atrocity could make you look like a misguided dupe, but it does not prevent you from expressing your opinion publicly here.

As for the judges, they are made unsackable to ensure their independence.

If the police can not supply evidence to continue detention, no one could blame them for ordering release.
If there was doubt, I would hope that they would err on the side of caution and safety.

A similar situation happens now, as judjes frequently over rule police opposition to bail, and there have been plenty of cases of bailed criminals committing serious crimes including murder.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 03:39 PM

A thought experiment:

You are a judge responsible for carrying out these reviews. The police have detained someone and you agreed to that three weeks ago and two weeks ago. In the third week you felt no progress had been made and made this clear to the police. Now you question the police again and are not satisfied that they have found any more solid evidence all over the last fourteen days. Nor are you convinced they are likely to.

Being both human and intelligent, you are aware of what the outcry would be if you ordered his release and he then went on to commit some atrocity. On the other hand, you not satisfied that any evidence is likely to appear, but you know that if you let things continue for longer few people are likely to complain much. After all, even the accused isn't party to your doubts.

Have you the courage to order his release?

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:22 PM

Fair point shambles.
I should have said that a maximum period of 90 days, with the police having to convince a judge every seven days that the suspect should not be released, is not what is normally understood to be internment.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 10:57 AM

As none of know exactly when our hearts and bodies are going to give out - 90 days (or less) could well be all the life someone has left. And establishing that this someone was in fact innocent after their death - is little consolation to one who has spent their last days deprived of their freedom.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 07:29 AM

90 days is not a lifetime.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 07:28 AM

Peter K
Not a wish list but ther professional advice on what they need to to do their job.

I note that Lord Carlisle, the Liberal Democrat peer appointed to be an independent advisor on security, agrees that 90 days was needed.

Your so professional politicians are ignoring his advice as well as that of the career professionals in the field of counter terrorism.

It is hard not to believe that those politicians are motivated only by the desire to get the knife into Blair.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: ard mhacha
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 07:20 AM

To all of those people on this Thread who advocate internment without trial I ask, do you know what it is like to be locked up in prison for years at the whim of some anonymous government figure?.
This was the outcome for many totally innocent people in the north of Ireland, I would wish internment without trial, on the all of those people who think it patriotic to apply this draconian measure.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 07:18 AM

Murdering someone deprives them of all human rights and civil liberties.
The terrorists intend to do that to hundreds at a time if they can.
Stopping them is not about patching.
It is a big picture.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Tam the man
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 06:49 AM

it was great

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 06:45 AM

Pathetic, Keith. Your reasoning is on a par with the editorials of the gutter press.

Contrary to your innuendo, politicians are professionals too. They are elected and paid to legislate. I don't question that the police are professionals, but their job is to uphold whatever laws the legislators pass (along with interpretations of the law established down the years by the courts - ie case law).

Like any other professionals - teachers, lawyers, mining engineers, clinicians - the police have their wishlists. But how often do any of them get everything they want? And do you really think they should?

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 07:44 PM

No Kieth, Don is seeing a bigger picture.

You can carry on applying patch after patch to our problems the way you advocate reducing civil liberties in the process and you know what? Our problems will increase, not decrease - at least until we all have chips implanted in our brains...

It's not as if it's a path that hasn't been trodden before.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 06:29 PM

So Don,
You do not know as much about their job as they do, but you know better than them how long they need to do it?

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 02:52 PM

Stuff and nonsense, Keith.

I don't pretend to know about counterterrorism, but I do know what has resulted from allowing governments to abrogate civil rights. The results of that are turning up on our shores by the truck load.

The police need to make better use of technology, and co-operate more efficiently across national boundaries. Then they wouldn't need the extra time.

Those who care least about others losing civil rights usually squeal the loudest when their own are affected.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 11:40 AM

BTW....Have you apologised yet!!

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 11:22 AM

Shakey.....On the subject of brains.

I was selling carpets in Baghdad, when you were in you're dad's bag.......    Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 10:20 AM

I hope you are right Don, and that you do indeed know more about counter terrorism than the professionals who have spent their whole careers in the service.

Your side has won.
The amatuers and politicians have over ruled the professionals.

Let's hope it turns out OK.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: GUEST,Shakey
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 08:54 AM

Personally I don't agree with 90 detention but I despise the politicians that have used this purely as a way of knocking TB. As for that prat ake (if he had a brain he'd be dangerous), I think you'll find that Galloway has far bigger problems than TB. Blair's legacy? he marginalised the loony left (are you still reading ake). You carry on buying morning star and soc worker and the real left, who really care about people will do the job for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 06:35 AM

For the last sixty years we have seen civil defence exercises practising response to everything from nuclear attack to KT type impact. Governments would be guilty of dereliction of duty if they did not prepare in this way.

There have been no instances of civil rights erosion in connection with any of these.

The arguments you advance for holding innocent people (and remember, they are all innocent until convicted) without charge do not stand up under logical examination.

If, as you suggest, the problem is the time it takes to get information from foreign countries, the obvious answer would seem to be to improve communication, not to hold suspects longer.

We live in a time when I can talk to people anywhere on earth virtually in real time. Police can easily avail themselves of the same facilities. Does nobody but me wonder why they haven't already arranged direct access to foreign databases?

Every totalitarian regime has started with the removal of some civil rights "for the protection of the public" from a perceived, or a manufactured threat.

In each case the public has eventually been in need of protection from the regime itself.

Is this the way forward? I don't believe it is.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 02:44 AM

Peter K,
Thank you for reminding me that should the bombers kill hundreds or even thousands, statistically it is unlikely to effect anyone I care for.
How stupid are people who feel anxious about being deep underground in overcrowded carriages. They should be able to clear their minds of those horific news images by applying your logic.
Since the bombers can not even compete with road deaths, should we pursue them at all? There is the apalling risk that an innocent person might be questioned.

I did not wash my hands of the example I gave. I am a suburban school teacher. how could I verify it?
Hardly a debating point to ask me to.
Someone asked why the police needed extra time and I repeated what they have said. There has been ample opportunity for those political opportunists to refute it. It has been extensively debated in parliament, the media and the press. It has notbeen questioned or refuted. What does that tell you?

I do have one bit of inside knowledge. As a Territorial I have volunteered for the Contingency Reaction Force, who will move in 48hours after a major incident to support the emergency services as they become exhausted.
Last month we had an exercise. It was about setting up temporary mortuaries as the existing facilities become overwhelmed.

Silly to worry about it though.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 08:58 PM

Iraq finished Blair....His ego obliged him to support Bush against public opinion and the Party.

When his majority was so drastically reduced, the writing was on the wall. If he had not announced that he would be stepping down before the next election, the Party would have had to sack him!

Everyone says that the recent vote was the turning point for Blair, but I remember the ladies of the WI slow handclapping him on TV after he had been evasive to their questioning. The change started that night, and the momentum increased with every disaster.
On elction night Blair and his wife had to stand and listen to a devastating attack on his character and judgement by the father of a young soldier killed in Iraq.
Blair visibily aged five years before our eyes.

Every victory for George Galloway was another nail in Blairs coffin...and didn't George love it.

Blair clings on ,wounded, psychologically flawed,but still searching for a legacy.

Somebody should tell him that he carries a legacy which will never be forgotten. The man who killed the aspirations of a nation; and took them to war on a "pack of lies"...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 08:16 PM

That's the point, DMcG - he can't. At least 50 of his own MPs are sufficinetly pissed off with his presidential style and contempt for parliamentary process to be out for the kill at the first sniff of blood. And they've had that sniff.

Did you see Brown proclaiming in the papers yesterday that the defeat would have been even greater if he hadn't weighed in for Blair? Extraordinary. If Blair can't expect even a public show of loyalty from his most senior (de facto if not de jure) colleague, then he's finished.

My money would be on Brown being installed before the next Labour Party conference (Sept 2006). The Tories would be delighted with that. It would not suit them to have Blair hanging on till the end because Brown would then go into the election basking in a honeymoon start, and with the luxury of being able to say everything had been Blair's fault. But the fact that an early succession would play well for the Tories will not hold back the critics on Blair's own back benches. Their loathing for the man is palpable.