» Friday, November 4, 2005

Anti-Terror Legislation

Put to him that Brian Paddick at the Met Police had said he had problems with the anti terror legislation, saying we had to be aware of the unintended consequences of legislation in terms of whether it affected peoples willingness to come forward. He went on to say he had real concerns about whether this legislation would deter Muslims giving evidence. Asked for a reaction given that both the Prime Minister and Sir Ian Blair had said the police were united on the terror proposals, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that the Prime Minister took his view on anti-terror legislation not just from Sir Ian Blair but also from Andy Hayman, the head of the anti terror branch. Of course we wanted to have the full co-operation of every section of the community in the country, which was why we had embarked on explaining why we needed the anti-terrorism legislation. Also the Home Office had embarked on its efforts to reach out to the Muslim community. Sir Ian Blair and Andy Hayman had expressed the views of those who were at the front line of dealing with terrorism. Brian Paddick’s views were a matter for him.

Asked about the Attorney General’s views quoted in Parliament on Wednesday, the PMOS said that, as they knew, we did not discuss the Attorney General’s advice to the Government. Asked if the Prime Minister was hoping that by Monday most of his backbench would have been given a strong message on the anti-terror law, and whether he thought he would be in a position to put 90 days forward again, the PMOS said that we had said we would consult the other parties and we had had said that MPs right across the board should talk to their local police commanders and their local communities about the issue. As he had said yesterday the key issue was not 90 days but rather if they were against 90 days how then would we meet the needs of the police to have longer to sift and collate evidence given the complexity and the degree of threat this new kind of terrorism posed.

Briefing took place at 16:00 | Search for related news


  1. "As he had said yesterday the key issue was not 90 days but rather if they were against 90 days how then would we meet the needs of the police to have longer to sift and collate evidence given the complexity and the degree of threat this new kind of terrorism posed."

    Easy. Tell the police to stop being so bloody incompetent and wasting their time running round London shooting all and sundry, and do their job. And if part of their job means having to get the job done in the same amount of time they’ve always failed to do their job, then tough frigging titty, Tony; get used to it. 90 days my arse! And even more "my arse" is the thought that it was the police who dreamt up the 90 day thing and not Tony Bliar. Get off it Tony, do you really expect us to believe a) a word you say about anything, and b) that the police, especially senior police like "sir" Ian Bliar, are capable of thinking about anything but their own pensions and titles?

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 7 Nov 2005 on 1:16 pm | Link
  2. Adolf Hitler secured his dictatorship through the enabling act, which only gained support by constant fearmongering about terrorism and the unique threat posed by ‘terrorists’. You’d have thought we’d have learnt about this at school, wouldn’t you? This is the land of Habeas Corpus. It must not happen here.

    Comment by Antipholus Papps — 7 Nov 2005 on 4:03 pm | Link
  3. This excuse of sifting through computer evidence is bogus. There’s a law to compel people to turn it over already — oddly not yet in force, yet still being amended by this Bill:

    <a href="http://theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2005-11-03a.1040.0">http://theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2005-11-03a.1040.0</a&gt;

    — which would mean you would be guilty if you did not turn over the keys for decryption to them. It seems reasonable that you could be charged and found guilty on this offence without the need of three months of bunglingly slow Kafka-esque gathering of evidence involving the printing out and reading of your hard disk one page at a time.

    "I’m sorry, you have been found guilty of police incompetance. Your sentence is three months detention without bail."

    There is no excuse, they have no excuse, for pressing this measure. They’re making things up, and are rubbish at it.

    Comment by Julian Todd — 7 Nov 2005 on 7:26 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)


This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Downing Street Says...

The unofficial site which lets you comment on the UK Prime Minister's official briefings. About us...


November 2005
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
« Oct   Dec »

Supported by


Disruptive Proactivity

Recent Briefings



Syndicate (RSS/XML)



Contact Sam Smith.

This site is powered by WordPress. Theme by Jag Singh