Blair stands firm on Terror laws

[k69atie]

The Prime Minister is on a collision course with his party's rebels after refusing to back down over proposed anti-terror laws.The Home Secretary has also refused to compromise over plans to let police detain suspects without charge for up to 90 days.The Government had hinted it would compromise over the issue.

But instead, Charles Clarke said he would agree to a review of the law after one year, if enough MPs support the Bill to get it through the Commons.

The "sunset clause" was tendered a week after Tony Blair narrowly avoided defeat on the issue.

Mr Blair now has a huge battle on his hands as Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and some Labour backbenchers insisted they will continue to oppose the Bill.

Labour MP Janet Anderson is understood to have given the Government a fall-back plan by tabling an amendment that would allow police to detain suspects for up to 60 days.

But Mr Clarke has said he is confident the Government will win.

He said: "I have considered very, very carefully what has happened, and the fact is that opinion has moved very, very strongly over the last 48 hours towards the idea that we should have a 90-day period of pre-charge detention with a set of safeguards in place.

"So what I am tabling is a 90 day pre-charge detention together with a sunset clause after 12 months, which means the whole House, indeed the whole country, can review the situation with regards to 90 days and see whether they are satisfied with the operation of that during that period."

The move comes after Mr Blair said a compromise on the issue would be "a compromise with the nation's security".

 

[jaimie.uk fan]

Well done Mr Blair in my opinion .

 

[k69atie]

Gordon Brown and Jack Straw are returning to the UK to help salvage Tony Blair's plans to implement a 90-day detention rule for terror suspects.

Mr Brown had only just arrived in Israel when he was told he had to return, while Mr Straw is flying back from Russia.

The Chancellor said he was returning "to vote in parliament on what is a vital issue of absolute and crucial importance to the country, and that's the security of the country".

"I want not only to cast my vote, but I want everybody who can cast their vote to cast their vote on the Government's position," he added.

Mr Brown will return to Israel for talks on the region's economy once the vote has taken place.

Mr Straw is coming back from Moscow early having been due to take part in EU-Russia talks.

Mr Blair is facing opposition from Labour rebels, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, who say 90 days is too long to hold someone without charge

Mr Blair proposed the rule after conferring with police, who insist the power is necessary to prevent further attacks on Britain.

When the Terrorism Bill reaches report stage in the Commons, Labour rebels plan to join forces with opposition parties to try to scupper the plan.

Mr Blair and Home Secretary Charles Clarke are expected to spend much of the day - including Prime Minister's Questions - trying to persuade waverers that 90 days are needed.

Despite insisting they would not budge over the rule, Mr Clarke has already introduced a "sunset clause", promising to review the law after 12 months.

If Mr Blair still struggles for support over the issue, the Government may consider falling back on a 60-limit proposed by Labour loyalist Janet Anderson, MP for Rossendale and Darwen.

And if he still has no luck, Mr Blair may opt for a 28-day limit - twice the amount of time currently allowed - suggested by his party's Walsall North MP David Winnick and supported by the majority of MPs.

 

[Duke]

Mr Blair is facing opposition from Labour rebels, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, who say 90 days is too long to hold someone without charge

:thumb::thumb:

The terror works quite well, btw. Look how panicked they all are. Pushing through absurd laws, paranoia everywhere.

WATCH YOUR LIBERTY

 

[k69atie]

Tony Blair and his Home Secretary are meeting senior police officials and security staff after the overwhelming Commons defeat on the Terror Bill.

The pair will also join the rest of the Cabinet to discuss tactics in the wake of the snub.

The Prime Minister insists his authority is still intact, despite claims that it marks the beginning of the end of his leadership.

Charles Clarke has taken responsibility for the reverse and attacked Labour's rebels, saying they were "hell-bent" on trying to defeat the Government.

Political pundits say Mr Blair could struggle to stay on after the Government's proposal to detain terror suspects for up to 90 days without charge was defeated by 31 votes.

After 49 Labour MPs rebelled, the Commons backed a rebel amendment to extend the time suspects can be held from 14 to 28 days.

It was the biggest defeat for a Government on a vote carrying a three-line whip since 1979.

Mr Blair branded the decision "deeply irresponsible" and brushed aside calls from Tory leader Michael Howard to consider his position.


An armed guard in Downing St. Sky News' Jenny Percival said: "I don't think anyone doubts that Mr Blair's demise has now been hastened."

He turned on Labour's "serial rebels" who were "hell-bent" on trying to defeat the Government.

"You do have a group of people who are utterly determined to punch Tony Blair on the nose," he said.

Mr Clarke told Sky News: "I criticise myself for my own failure to win that argument in the way that I would have liked to do so.

"The judgment I made, unfortunately, wrongly as it turned out, was that there would be a majority in the House for the 90 days, plus (an)important concession of the sunset clause to give people a year to look at it."

He also claimed that opposition parties were "entirely motivated by opportunism and a desire to beat the Government".

 

[Franchise2003]

best thing our MP's have done for ages still 28 days is still about 25 days to long without charge. Thats a month in a cell without even being told what youve supposedly done wrong?? (apart from having brown skin obviously)

 

[not really ken]

Well done Mr Blair in my opinion .

well done for what exactly? that they want a law where they can simply detain someone for three months without charge? Detaining people on terrorism chagres for heckling Blair, take peoples liberties away.
Go graze on some grass Jamie! Your not dangerous there!

 

[jaimie.uk fan]

well done for what exactly? that they want a law where they can simply detain someone for three months without charge? Detaining people on terrorism chagres for heckling Blair, take peoples liberties away.
Go graze on some grass Jamie! Your not dangerous there!

Well done for starting the war against these bastards , which by the look of it has been stopped by a group of politicaly correct idiots , what about the the liberties of the people these fuckers blow up ? Im sure if this law was brought in they wouldnt arrest any muslim person just because of their religion , they have a good idea who these guys are through inteligence reports and investigating and this law would allow them the chance to detain and go to work on these guys and stop them killing people , without them crying for thier human rights which they enjoy in a country which embraces them and which they want to destroy .
Zero tolerance against these fuckers below -

www.jihadwatch.org/archives/001725.php

These guys need to be stopped and be detained , they know who these guys are but cant touch them cause of their human rights which they always preach and enjoy , if i had my way i would graze on their arses , but not everyday peacefull people who want to live in our country in peace .

Im sick of arguing this point .

 

[ill-matic]

90 days is a bit too extreme.. And for what? To give enough time to collate evidence to substantiate a case?

Shouldnt they be arrested after the appropriate evidence has been collated? This sounds more like a 'lets take a stab in the dark and hope we'll get lucky with any evidence we have' type of legislation

an inncoent person can be detained for 89 days, and on the final day theyll realise there was no evidence. sounds ridiculous.

 

[jaimie.uk fan]

90 days is a bit too extreme.. And for what? To give enough time to collate evidence to substantiate a case?

Shouldnt they be arrested after the appropriate evidence has been collated? This sounds more like a 'lets take a stab in the dark and hope we'll get lucky with any evidence we have' type of legislation

an inncoent person can be detained for 89 days, and on the final day theyll realise there was no evidence. sounds ridiculous.

You have a valid point but im sure this amount of time was choosen for a reason plus we do not know how long it takes to get the ball rolling on these things , its not a case of - sit down son tell us what you know - plus im sure their will be red tape surrounding all this which may take time to move around , however i feel the goverment should crack down hard on these people - zero tolerence , as i said they are not gonna arrest any person with this rule for the sake of it , they know who these guys are and anyway if it contributes even a slight amount to saving lives then great , fuck their human rights , they should be stropped the minuete these guys decide they want to kill people . If they do not like it simple - do not kill people or if they cannot bring themselves to stop murdering innocent people then they should leave .