 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Blairs first defeat
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: DMcG Date: 12 Nov 05 - 03:49 PM No problem with the quote, Keith. As I said, I don't believe for one moment that this is an easy decision for anyone who thinks about it. I agree that we are fortunate in not having many racial attacks that end in killings, but we are not free of race riots by any means, and I would not underestimate the consequences if - a big if - we lost our grip on race relations. And of course, you need not go as far as death. How many violent beatings that end in permanent damage do you trade off against each death due to terrorism? So: I respect your views and am sure you have thought long and hard in coming to them. I recognise that there is the possibility that another attack could kill far people than 7/7 did. Nevertheless, I have come to different a different balance and would want to make sure that we have looked at all the other options properly (such as the staffing and resources question I raised above) before we implement laws which may have all sorts of unexpected side effects. You may recall that this thread is actually about whether this is the start of the end for Blair. I don't think it is, particularly if there is another major terrorist attack anywhere in America, Europe or Australia. Even without that, he's too skilful a politician to let a single defeat get to him. Everything hinges on whether he can prevent defeats on the other major manifesto issues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 12 Nov 05 - 03:14 PM Keith, it's surely poor form to cite an example as proof of your argument then blithely wash your hands of it the first time anyone asks you to enlarge. But in all probability the example wasn't worth anything to start with, otherwise Blair and Clarke would have clutched at it rather than leave themselves with nothing. If you're that worried about your two sons, after their recent brush with death, you might have to fork out for them to spend the rest of their lives in long-haul flight. It's safer than any environment they're like to encounter on the ground, apart from perhaps a high-dependency unit in a private clinic. But do NOT ever let them take a car journey - even a short one. According to your own perception of risk, that would mean certain death. Visit this thread for more risks you need to know about. According to Channel 4 (ITN) news in the UK this evening, US troops have detained 35,000 Iraqis since Bush bragged "mission accomplished". Fewer than two per cent of them have been charged with anything, and fewer still convicted. I wonder if Keith & Co seriously believe this has made the world a safer place. I can't imagine it's won many hearts and minds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Nov 05 - 02:46 PM Sorry, your actual quote was increased risk of violence to the majority of the population, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Nov 05 - 02:42 PM "..a risk of violence to the whole of the population"? How many Lawrence like racial murers do we really get? How many actual people actually were killed on 7/7 How many more would have died in the suicide attacks on 21/7 but for the lucky chance that the explosives had degraded? How many next time? I fear you may be seriously underestimating the threat. That is what those who we pay to know these things are telling us. I think we should listen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: DMcG Date: 12 Nov 05 - 02:17 PM Thanks for your comments, Keith. I'm 'just Joe Public' as well! As I see it, this is not a case of choosing to do something to prevent terrorism, but doing something that may reduce terrorism affecting, to be realistic, a minute proportion of the population at the cost of not just civil liberties but increased risk of violence to the majority of the population, caused by various groups feeling they are victimised or seen as worth less by the rest of the population. Putting it in what I admit are probably extreme terms: how do we trade off the risks of more cases like Steven Lawrence against the chances of preventing 7/7s? It's the uneviable task of Parliament to come to that balance. What I think is a great tragedy of politics, generally, is that once people have come to that difficult decision they feel obliged to present their conclusion without admitting its costs and also disparaging anyone else who came to a different balance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Nov 05 - 01:29 PM Why ask me. I am just Jo public whose 2 sons have to use the tube and like so many others know they were just lucky last time. The police point up this case. Have any of the politicians raised any query over it ? Why not? If there was anything dodgy about it Mr Howard would certainly have brought it to our attention. On one side we have Blair, with nothing to gain, accepting the operational advice of those with more knowledge and experience than anyone in the world of the threat posed. On the other we have some anti Blairites whose careers will advance dramatically when he has gone. And this is not about fox hunting or council tax, but massive violent death. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: DMcG Date: 12 Nov 05 - 01:05 PM Agreed, Keith. But are you then prepared to detain a significant proportion of the people closely linked to that address for the 14/28/90 days in the expectation that one of them is the guilty party? In the actual case, was the most likely suspect held for the full 14 days that currently apply? If not, I don't see how extending the time limit would have made any significant difference. Another question. Do you know why it took 14 days? Were they working on it for all fourteen, or were 12 of them wasted because they didn't have the staff levels or special equipment needed? If the latter, its a good argument for increased staff/resourcing, but not for changing the time limit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Nov 05 - 12:47 PM You could not prove even that everyone using the address was guilty, never mind other accomplices. The most useful evidence is forensic, documents and computers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: DMcG Date: 12 Nov 05 - 12:22 PM Keith A said (along with others elsewhere): After 7/7 one address took 14 days to make safe enough to search. I'd like some elaboration of that, but so far haven't heard it. If they knew the building was unsafe, they presumably knew it had explosives or whatever in there. That's surely an offence in its own right and the people responsible could be arrested and charged immediately. Under the (new) double jeopardy rules, I think, the people involved could be charged with unlawful possession of explosives, etc, and then the charges related to terrorism applied later once the evidence had been gathered. Or is that mistaken? Have you more details? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Cllr Date: 12 Nov 05 - 12:17 PM Yes Peter I did mean we as in conservaties |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Nov 05 - 12:13 PM It was proposed that the police would be strictly monitored on this one. Each case was to have a judicial review every seven days. With such safeguards imposed, and the risk of an even greater slaughter next time, I think we should have supported the police who, for all their mistakes, have served us pretty well so far. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 12 Nov 05 - 11:39 AM I agree with that Peter. Every tiniest part of our civil liberties needs to be protected from people who would, given the chance, allow us none. It surprises me that so many have forgotten the results of the West Midland Crime Squad's well meaning efforts to strengthen their cases. Ask those freed as a result how much they would trust the police to have extra powers. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 12 Nov 05 - 11:30 AM By "we" I take it you mean the Tories, Cllr? Caroline Spelman MP, a Tory frontbencher, said on BBC Question Time on Thursday that 28 days was the most the Tories had been prepared to consider so therefore there would have been little purpose in negotiating. I am a socialist through and through, but I have no difficulty (for once) in saying good for the Tories. Except that even 28 days is too much in my view. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Nov 05 - 11:19 AM Investigating a terror suspect often requires gathering evidence from foreign countries. Computer files have to be opened that have been encrypted by the most advanced methods. Mobile phone records have to be studied, again from more than one country. Thousands of hours of CCTV have to be scrutinised. After 7/7 one address took 14 days to make safe enough to search. These are the reasons given by the police for needing extra time. I trust them more than a bunch of politicians desperate to topple Blair and get their own snouts deeper in the trough. (How unusual for Akeneaton and friends to be alligned with the Tory party on this issue!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Cllr Date: 12 Nov 05 - 09:45 AM Mr K I take my hat off to you, I agree wiht guest cobra about your analysis. I have spoken to a couple of conservative MP's over this and the internment issue in NI is the one that keeps being mentioned. There is a lot to be recommended in the bill or at least a lot we agreed with but the sticking point was the ninety days if that had been negotiable the conservatives MP would have been able to support it, at least that is my understandng. Cllr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: GUEST,cobra Date: 12 Nov 05 - 05:47 AM Excellent analysis there, Mr K. Just one small point:- " We live with risk every day", you said. And ain't that the truth. I am. of course, speaking as one who has heard you sing... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Nov 05 - 08:46 PM Phone-in polls are meaningless as a way of gauging public opinion. And police chiefs know when to say what the Prime Minister needs them to say. "One hand washes the other hand..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 11 Nov 05 - 06:58 PM Keith, Georgiansilver and weelittledrummer should engage their brains for a moment. Where is the evidence that holding and questioning suspects for 90 days without charge would make us any safer? If between the three of them they can answer this, they will have done better than Blair, who was asked this question repeatedly on Wednesday and could give no answer. A couple of hours later the home secretary (working hand in glove with the nation's chief constables) did manage to come up with an example. He told MPs that the risin case might have resulted in a conviction had the 90 days been an option, whereas in fact the suspect had been released and had left the country by the time forensic evidence came to light. This example was shot down by one of his own backbenchers, Chris Mullins, who pointed out that the suspect had not even been held for the 14 days then available to police, but had been released after just two! All very heartless of Mullins, given that this was the only example that Blair, Clarke and 40 police chiefs had managed to turn up to support their curious fixation with 90 days. Why the sudden enthusiasm for dancing to the police's tune? The police are against extending the hours during which alcohol may be served, but that is not going to dictate the legislation. Politicians should take account of professional advice whether it's from lawyers, clinicians or whoever, but it in the end they are elected to exercise their judgment. Even if there was some new code that said the professionals should dictate the legislation, what about the country's most senior judges, the Law Lords, who are opposed to 90 days? "Exhorbitant" and "reprehensible in a free society" are among the comments they have made. At Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday Balir responded to that by saying "As for the Law Lords, I would rather listen to the police than them." Why? Because he is obsessed with blowing in the wind of public opinion and believed he saw a chance to embarrass the Tories in that respect. Those in this thread who think it was the Tories who were playing party politics on Wednesday are not in the real world. The Tories have lost members to terrorism, and their cabinet could easily have been wiped out in the Brighton bomb. Lord Tebbitt suffered serious injury in that bombing and his wife was paralysed. To suggest his oppositon to the 90 days was political expediency is as offensive as it is stupid. Have people forgotten the catastrophic effect of internment in Northern Ireland? In what real sense is the equivalent of a six-month prison term morally more acceptable? Have we really learnt nothing from that staggering blunder (as all but the DUP lunatics now accept it to have been)? What if Georgiansilver's ofrecast is fulfilled and there is another atrocity? Well first of all, to his acute disappointment, it would probably turn out to be like any others that have occurred so far - that is, completely unaffected by any 90-day legislation. But even if it turned out to be the very first case where such legislation would have made a difference, and even if such an atrocity was certain to occur within six months, I'd be happy to take my chances. We live with risk every day. None of us can assume we will live three-score years and ten, and even if another atrocity was guaranteed within the next six months, we're probably all at greater risk of being killed by a piece of office furniture than of being caught in that blast. We're certainly at greater risk from road traffic accidents and the consequences of alcohol abuse by others. One thing's for sure - the Sun newspaper will flourish as long as there are people like Keith, Georgiansilver and weelittledrummer to swallow its ranting crap without question. Oh, and yes, of course Blair's finished. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: The Shambles Date: 11 Nov 05 - 05:27 PM I heard on the news today that Jordan had arrested just about everyone and their cat for the attack................ Perhaps if they had done this before the attack - the measure may have prevented it. One thing is sure - taking such action after the event will not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Davetnova Date: 11 Nov 05 - 09:14 AM After trying so hard to get 90 day detention, I find it surprising that the British goverment are so upset about the thirteen day dentention of two britons arrested by in Iran in disputed waters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: GUEST,DB Date: 11 Nov 05 - 08:20 AM Keith A of Hartford suggests that I am "in denial" about dodgy polls - I only wish I was - although I do admit to some SLIGHT exaggeration in framing my fictional poll question. The fact is that another characteristic of powerful people is that they always seem to require justification for their actions and, these days, this always comes down to having numbers available to support their agendas, preconceptions and prejudices. The interesting thing is that the likes of Blair, who must operate within a parliamentary democracy, needs such numbers, spurious or otherwise, to support his case but even unconstitutional tyrants seem to need them as well. Until recently I worked for such a gang of tyrants (typical British bosses!) and they were always commissioning studies carefully designed to give them the answers they wanted. As someone with an interest in data and statistics I get sick and tired of the phrase, "there are lies, damned lies and statistics". I can't remember who coined this phrase but he was WRONG: there are only LIES! By the way, what is the point of going to all the trouble and expense of running a spurious study - why not just make the numbers up? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: akenaton Date: 11 Nov 05 - 08:15 AM I'm heartened by the posts above from good people who are intelligent enough to realise that stopping terrorism needs more than brute force. Force, either legal or military will always inflame the situation. I can hardly think of one conflict involving "terrorism " which has been solved by force. After many weasel words and bluster from the politicians, any sort of peace has been arrived at through diplomacy, and whether we like to admit it or not the "terrorists" always win. People using terrorist tactics, be they blacks in South Africa, Republicans in Northern Ireland, or insurgents in Iraq, have always an ideology which drives them, even when that ideology is a madness like fundamentalist Islam. We on the other hand are driven only by the need to keep this corrupt system in place dividing our society and causing death and destruction throughout the world. We are ideologically bankrupt, as can be seen from the postings of Doug Keith ect. The best we can hope for is to start showing a good example for a change ...and keeping our fingers crossed...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: The Shambles Date: 11 Nov 05 - 05:31 AM yeh ask the Jordanians if 28 days seems about right this morning. There remain many places in the world (Jordan possibly being one of them) where there are no safeguards to protect their people from being imprisioned indefinitely on mere suspicion - or places where there are no effective laws at all. I hope you are not suggesting that we join them? As it would seem that having these powers does not protect them from terrorist attacks and some may argue that such unchecked powers make terrorist attacks more likely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 11 Nov 05 - 05:17 AM Doug R, The argument about a person released after fourteen days going out and blowing up a bunch of people is specious. The same could be said about someone who had been held without trial for a month, or a year, or a decade....... Do you seriously suggest we grab anyone who looks a bit Muslim and hold them for life just in case? Get real, for God's sake. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: GUEST,Boab Date: 11 Nov 05 - 12:38 AM As I was about to say---"Have I said anything wrong, Doug?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: GUEST,Boab Date: 11 Nov 05 - 12:32 AM Doug R.---I have in the past had respect for your strongly held rightwing opinions---but I have NEVER seen such a pointless and deliberately insulting concoction of trash as your 11.45 pm posting. We WONT be "nice" to terrorists. Neither should we or anyone else be nice to those who create terrorists. Now here's something which would doubtless prompt Tony Bliar to stick the label on me ---if any foreign country invaded mine with as little provocation as the Iraqis displayed a few years back, with tanks planes bombs and guns, then I for one would take up any weapon that was within my grasp and use stealth and darkness if necessary in order to level the playing field, and to impres upon the invader that there was no profit in his staying around. Now wouldn't Tony and wee Georgie [and Doug?]just be real keen to stick the "terrorist" label on me? Have I |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: DougR Date: 10 Nov 05 - 11:45 PM Okie dokie, ye happy folks at Blair's defeat, but if some person held on suspicion of planning or executing terrorism is the key person to cause an event that results in great devastion to the people of Great Britain, don't cry on our shoulders because of it. (Must be nice to terrorists.) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: akenaton Date: 10 Nov 05 - 05:11 PM Guest DB....You are quite correct. Apparently, before yesterdays vote questionaires were circulated to Labour MPs from the whips office asking simplistic questions on whether they "supported terrorism " or not . Most of the replies were unprintable ...and Blair lost the vote ..Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 10 Nov 05 - 05:02 PM Not likely Richard, as long as what passes for Labour is led by this crooked, lying b*****d. Give me a socialist party to vote for and................. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: akenaton Date: 10 Nov 05 - 05:00 PM Keith, wee drummer GS......Blair is history, get over it! He has become a liability to those craven people who supported him when they knew he was wrong. Once again he tries to play the populist card to save his skin.. He failed and now that the rebels scent blood he's finished. Many on the left see Blair and New Labour as a bigger threat to Socialism than the Tories. Just as the Conservatives could never have involved us in Iraq, they would never have been able to attack our civil rights in the the way Blair proposed. Legislation can never be based wholly on what the public "want". If that was the case, Mr Pierrepont would still be in business and doing his work in public to a paying audiance...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: mooman Date: 10 Nov 05 - 03:59 PM If you imagine reputable, established polls would ask a question like that, you are in denial. I am not in denial. Go outside and ask around yourself. I did and I did. Most people trust the police on this one. Quite possibly but most people don't trust Tony Blair in general any more. The police and ITV are politically neutral. Really! I never knew that! Peace moo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: ard mhacha Date: 10 Nov 05 - 03:05 PM Britains fair laws?, to realise what detentsion without trial means, Google up John McGuffins Internment, it`s a compelling read and for good measure also read The Guinea Pigs, this second book is an insight into what went on in detention. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Richard Bridge Date: 10 Nov 05 - 02:11 PM Good God Don! You'll be voting Labour next! The crucial issue is this (I think). If you were an innocent man, and siezed and detained for 90 days (as this provision would empower) what would you think? If you think the police would never sieze you because you are innocent, you are barking mad. This terror - the possibility of misuse of the power - must be balanced against what proper things it might achieve. A blank cheque for 90 days is unacceptable. Do not forget the vast majority in Germany suported Hitler's additions to his own powers until it was far too late. Not (I hope) that Blair is like Hitler, but the majority can not be relied upon to defend those a minority, even when justice so requires. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Georgiansilver Date: 10 Nov 05 - 01:41 PM Wonder what the terrorists think? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 10 Nov 05 - 01:37 PM If you imagine reputable, established polls would ask a question like that, you are in denial. I'll go by the BBC Internet poll. Most people trust the police on this one. 58% on that one say Bliar got it wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 10 Nov 05 - 12:54 PM Whether or not you believe in Blair, it can't be right to set up circumstances in which police can grab anyone off the street, lock him up for the equivalent of a six month jail sentence (90 days being the average served by a convict sentenced to six months), and go on a fishing expedition to see if he can be used to improve their clear-up rate. Having failed to find any evidence, he can then be released without apology or compensation, having been blackened by the mere fact of his detention so that some people will believe he is guilty of some unspecified crime. Oh, by the way, if this post gives the impression that I don't totally trust the police, I don't. Most especially I don't trust the intelligence on which they so often base their actions (remember WMDs). Erosion of civil rights is a not a process to be undertaken lightly, and the last people who should be trusted with it are those who call for it in the first place. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Georgiansilver Date: 10 Nov 05 - 12:11 PM Have to agree with you there Ted..it would have made much more sense to use the might of Political wrangling on something less 'crucial' to the Country. Best wishes, Mike. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Paco Rabanne Date: 10 Nov 05 - 09:44 AM Tactical voting intended to snub Mr Blair is my interperetation. Pity his first defeat wasn't the anti -fox hunting bill! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Nov 05 - 09:24 AM If you imagine reputable, established polls would ask a question like that, you are in denial. Go outside and ask around yourself. Most people trust the police on this one. The police and ITV are politically neutral. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: GUEST,DB Date: 10 Nov 05 - 08:53 AM All powerful people tend to bring about their own downfalls. An example from recent history is Maggie bringing in the Poll Tax. With this 90 day masterpiece Blair has not only alienated his own party but was very close to creating ideal conditions for terrorism to flourish in. As such he is merely following 'Tuchman's Law' (after the American historian, Barbara Tuchman who wrote a book called 'The March of Folly' about this same phenomenon). I haven't seen any of the questions that were asked in the polls but I imagine the question was along the lines of: "are you for terrorism or against it?" - how do you think most normal people voted? Such evidence does NOT support imprisoning terrorist suspects, without charge, for 90 days. I don't doubt that if there is another terrorist outrage, in the near future, Blair and his supporters will be saying "I told you so!" Do not believe them - they told us no such thing!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: sapper82 Date: 10 Nov 05 - 06:54 AM Irony. One of the leading lights in New Labour is Peter Hain who made a name for himself as an anti-aparthiet campaigner. 90 day detention without charge was used as a tool be the SA security services in the '60s. In addition I would not trust Ian Blair not to abuse this provision. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Big Al Whittle Date: 10 Nov 05 - 06:04 AM you wish.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: mooman Date: 10 Nov 05 - 05:44 AM Personally, I think it's the first serious nail in the coffin for him. Unlike GS above I perceive that public opinion is ebbing for him... polls are very often completely out depending on the way the questions are phrased. Peace moo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Georgiansilver Date: 10 Nov 05 - 04:17 AM In an ITV Poll this morning....support for Blair from 84% of the over 5,000 people who voted via phone and website..........what does that tell you? The General Public still believe in him!!!!! Best wishes, Mike. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Paul Burke Date: 10 Nov 05 - 03:55 AM I'd really be glad to be rid of New Labour and Blair and Golden Brown. If it weren't for the prospect of what would replace them. Head back under the bedclothes for another 5 years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: GUEST,Shanghaiceltic Date: 10 Nov 05 - 02:41 AM Although not linked to yesterdays defeat this article that appeared in the Guardian shows that Blair and his team have often ridden roughshod and ignored local advice. Sir Christpher Meyers view on Blair |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Big Al Whittle Date: 10 Nov 05 - 02:16 AM yeh ask the Jordanians if 28 days seems about right this morning. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Nov 05 - 02:10 AM Why did Blair do it? He knew that his own party would be hard to persuade. What was in it for him? He said that it was better to do the right thing and lose. We know that a number of Labour MPs always vote against Blair. We know that Tory MPs were privately strongly in favour, but saw a chance to hurt Blair. So it is not melodramatic to say that politics took preference over the safety of the people. The police say it was necessary. So do the prosecution services.(Yes they sometimes make operational mistakes.) The ordinary people were strongly in favour, and unlike polticians they have to ride the tube and use large hospitals and schools (likely next targets). At least Mudcat Left are happy And when the attack comes they will just say that the West had it coming. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: dianavan Date: 10 Nov 05 - 01:26 AM Hooray for Britain! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat From: GUEST,Boab Date: 10 Nov 05 - 01:18 AM There is no doubt that in Britain today there is a need for increased security and defence against terrorists. The increased "detention without trial" could well be a part of that necessity. But for a quarter of a year? A bit much, I say. And let's not forget that coupled with this attempt by the Prime Monster were little hardly-publicised proposals with regard to what constitutes "terrorism" or "activities in support of terrorism". All that aside, none of us should lose sight of the fact that had Blair had the nous to keep Britain out of the Iraq fiasco, the measures now being proposed would have been a damn' sight less imperative. Call me "Blair hater" if you will; it's not a badge to be ashamed of. He has made a shambles of the British Labour Party, and driven many moderate "lefties" to an extreme position because of the blatantly rightward march of "new" labour. While it is far too late to prevent further vengeful terrorist action, his demise cannot come fast enough. |
