Downing Street Says » Anti Terror Legislation Bill

Asked if it was true that the Government would rather extend the current legislation, rather than have no laws at all if no agreement was reached by Friday, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said, as he had said this morning, that the Government still believed that the current legislation would be passed. We believed that the balance of the bill was correct, but he advised people to wait and see what happened when the bill returned from the Lords.

Put to him that there must be a "game Plan B", the PMOS said that equally what happened at this stage was that we worked to get the legislation through within the parameters that we believed were feasible.

Asked if the Government could contemplate a situation where there was no legislation, and would there be a situation where people who were being detained would walk free, the PMOS said that what the Government was interested in was national security, and not a potential blame game, and that was what would guide the Government’s actions. In terms of the legislation we still believed there was a balance to be stuck between national security and people’s concerns. We would keep trying to strike that balance.

Put to the PMOS again that surely the Government would not want a situation where there were not laws on the statutory books which ensured the detention of people it believed posed a threat to the country, the PMOS replied that the whole purpose of what the Government was doing was to respond to the advice from the police and the security services about the dangers that they believed certain individuals posed. The PMOS said it would therefore be very strange if that was not also what guided our actions over the next few days.

Asked if there was any further indication of whether the bill would be overturned in the Lords, the PMOS said we were not in a position to say yet. We were waiting to see what state the bill came back from the Lords in, and we would respond to that accordingly. The important thing, as the PMOS had said this morning, was that we retained the ability in those few cases where we believed this legislation was necessary, to act, and to act with speed. Equally, it was important that we did not send any signal to either the terrorists or to the police and the security services, other than the strength of our intent to respond to the threat identified.

Asked if the Prime Minister would become personally involved in this issue today, the PMOS said it could be assumed that the Prime Minister was involved in this, as he was very clearly involved in identifying the priorities for us in the situation, and in being in contact with the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary was very much in the lead in dealing with this issue, and was approaching it with the seriousness with which the situation deserved.

12 Comments »

Appearing to be ‘not listening to the electorate’ in an election year seems to be a bit silly.

Along with the almost certain fact that if there are any dangerous terrorists in this country then they are very few and unknown to the authorities – this legislation is both ridiculous and dangerous.

Is this to do with marketing, where if an item doesn’t have a label nobody will buy it?

Is this all about justifying the now discredited ‘war on terror’ and our illegal invasion of Iraq?

Thank God for the House of Lords.
Comment by Roger Huffadine — 8 Mar 2005 on 5:54 pm | Link
Blair’s terrified he’ll lose the election if there’s an attack. "I did all that could be done," he’ll bleat.

No amount of curfews and house arrests will help. By their very nature the security services will want more and more restrictions as Blair seeks more and more reassurances that they’ve left no stone unturned. It’s a cover-your-arse exercise with no conceivable end to the liberties which will have to be trashed before MI5 could be tempted to say that nothing else could be done to improve security.

Proving the war was legally approved, without equivocation, by the AG Goldsmith might strengthen Blair’s hand. Otherwise, he’ll be seen to have invited the attack by the illegality of his optional war whatever he does.
Comment by Mr Pooter — 8 Mar 2005 on 6:44 pm | Link
Well, the Lords show some strength of character and independence of mind. Election is not necessarily the best method of selection of legislators, and it could be that heredity actually is. Either way, at least there are some who recognise the folly and danger of the Government’s current proposals and are prepared to make a stand.

It would also be useful for all to understand what the police and security services are actually doing – and being paid to do – apart from sitting in their (palatial) offices ‘advising’ and putting up pseudo justifications for more of the taxpayers’ cash.

Can all these highly trained and paid individuals not manage to provide proper evidence to convict without ‘compromising their sources’? Maybe it’s time to reconsider the role and function of these expensive and inefficient departments.

Of course the ‘urgency’ with which the matter now needs to be resolved is entirely down to failure. It has been known since the legislation was placed on the statute books that it had a finite date. As for any form of planning, we’re stumbling from shambles to crisis. This is yet another piece of engineered hysteria for purely political gain.

Nice to see some proper resistance at last. A bit more would be a good thing.
Comment by Chuck Unsworth — 9 Mar 2005 on 2:01 pm | Link
One amendment has been virtually ignored by the media: the Lords have required that evidence presented to judges doesn’t include evidence from foreign torture.

What do they know that we don’t? Could it possibly be that the whole "international terrorist conspiracy intelligence" is nothing more than the screams of poor innocents who got caught in the US dragnet and tortured in places like Afghanistan, Cuba, or Iraq?

Matthew Hopkins demonstrated in the Seventeenth Century that torture gets testimony – but we now know that this testimony is worthless.

Given Blair’s previous record on "dodgy intelligence", could this be the real problem?
Comment by Simon Richardson — 9 Mar 2005 on 3:18 pm | Link
I think you’ve pretty much hit the nail on the head there Simon – although you’ve arrived at that conclusion by a circuitous route. The whole point is control. And the reason for that control is the mess we have made of this planet, and are continuing to make, so that some people can make a lot of money and live comfortably till they, and the planet dies.

Consider that oil is currently forecast to run out in around 25 years time. Consider also that 25 years isn’t a long time. Now factor into your considerations the thought that it isn’t the point where oil runs out that we have to panic – but the point at which it STARTS to run out. When demand exceeds supply and some people have to start going without.

This point is called PEAK OIL. And it is currently forecast to occur in between 5 and 10 years time. Look at the current situation; when bad weather in Central America disrupting the supply from Venezuela is enough to drive the oil price through the roof. How long is this situation going to continue before the price at the pumps starts to go up like an elevator?

At the same time we have unequivocal links between human activity and global warming; the planet is warming up at an alarming rate. We have the Americans refusing to do anything about emissions, Bush insisting it is a natural phenomena, and the Yanks running around the globe right now picking fights with anyone and everyone who has a few cans of oil hidden somewhere in their country. And Blair backing up pretty much everything he says.

Blair knows all this as much as anyone who cares to do a little research does. But he also knows that 80% of the countrys population doesn’t read anything beyond what they see in the headlines. And so if he can convince the population that he needs to control them FOR THEIR OWN GOOD then enough of them will believe it to allow him to get these measures through. And you can see from reading things like the Your Say page on the BBC news website on a daily basis that there are a large proportion of people who really do believe he should have that power.

That scares me! That there are people who are so blind that they will allow their (and our) freedom to be restricted FOR THEIR OWN GOOD by this madman. And don’t try to kid yourself that Tony Blair is too principled, too good a man to allow a blatant miscarriage of justice to occur. Make no mistake, if he had the power he’d tearfully be telling the country he had no choice even as he flicked the switch to the electric chair himself. Don’t forget, this is the man who lied to the country in order that he and his mate George Brush could go and bomb the shit out of a country already destroyed by 25 years of abuse by itself and by us. This is the man who denies the best guesses of most groups attempting the count the casualties of that war – apart fromn the lowest one. This is a man with blood on his hands – including that of Doctor David Kelly – and would stoop to any depth to protect his job and his place in the history books.

And that’s what this is about. His place in the history books is more important than coming clean to the country. About how Al Qaeda is little more than a convenient front, a decoy with which the government can scare the electorate into surrendering their freedom in preparation for the days in the not far off future when the rule of law breaks down.

Sounds a scary and depressing picture, doesn’t it? Won’t happen, I hear you say? Well, what are we going to use to power electric stations when oil runs out? What are we going to use to transport food around the world? Petrol for our cars?

Unless there is a massive investment – and soon – and deployment of renewable power supplies, and a massive massive (impossibly so???) decrease in emissions, in 25 years this planet is going to be all but uninhabitable. And this is all unlikely to happen unless someone can persuade the US to get on board Kyoto (for a start off). But who? Certainly not Blair – he’s signed on the same ticket to hell as Bush. The same is happening in the US; they’re imprisoning people at a rate faster than ever in history at the moment. The slightest little connection with drugs or terrorism (well the 2 obviously go hand in hand, don’t they?!) – however tenuous – and you’re in the slammer. That’s what Blair wants over here.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 9 Mar 2005 on 5:59 pm | Link
Papa, I agree that Peak Oil fears are directly linked to the Iraq war and, given the source of most of it, to the terrorism issue. But let me correct you on a few points…

Recent Oil and Gas Journal articles suggest that Non-Opec producers will peak in 2005-2007, Former Soviet Union production will peak between 2008-2014 and OPEC production will peak in 2025-2030. The Saudis themselves have stated they’ll peak in 2035. BUT there are a lot of variables in play, demand fluctuates, supplies may be over or underestimated, technology has increased recovery from each field from 30 to 55% in some cases, the speed of take off – all these things play a role in calculations. That said, peak we will AND in the case of the light sweet crudes, sooner rather than later.

However, Peak Oil is not NO oil. It is ‘merely’ reaching the peak of the resource. At peak we will be half way through the supply that exists geologically. The price, once peak has been reached OR SEEN to be close to being reached, will rocket because supply is finite and cannot increase beyond that which the planet started with. (Abiotic dreamers aside). Some Peak Oilers, Campbell, Laherrere etc, think we may already have passed peak. Others, me included, think we’ll plateaux for a few years and that even if there is a peak we won’t know about it until we are well on the way down the other side of Hubbert’s supposed ( and discredited) bell-shaped peak. In reality no-one knows for sure as the reserves a nation holds are kept secret for strategic and economic reasons.

Peak Oilers also tend to ignore such well credited academics as Thomas Ahlbrandt of the USGS, Prof Linden and Prof Peter R Odell – the latter’s latest book claims that peak will not be reached until 2060 (NB PEAK OIL, NOT NO OIL). He counts in heavy hydrocarbons – oil tars, oil shale etc. nearly all of which is in North America (Canada and Colorado).

Peak Oil issues are why China and the USA are running around trying to secure oil supplies. There really is not, as you say, long, in human terms, to go before oil prices go bananas and stay there. 2035 is SOON. For my three ha’pence (in BP) 2015 will mark the peak of the liquid juice.

So your concern is well placed but your suggestion that the world will be uninhabitable in 25 years time is risible. You make the mistake of confounding PEAK oil with NO oil. I repeat, PEAK is half way through. At that stage prices will have gone ape and Green Peace will be begging for nuclear, (not much good for plastics, fertilizers, personal transport etc etc, I grant you that, but better than nothing).

Politicians will do little – tax air fares? Tax SUVs in the USA, reduce USA consumption (25% of total world use) – ha! A fuel crisis is effectively upon us.

PS Kyoto is flim-flam, Guardian reader gesture politics, and will do nothing to head this off.

PPS Natural Gas peaks soon after oil…..

The latest book on this is by Paul Roberts, The End of Oil. But DON’T ignore Odell’s view for balance, Peter Odell, Why carbon fuels will dominate the 21st century’s global energy economy.
Comment by Mr Pooter — 9 Mar 2005 on 8:54 pm | Link
If the lords had any decency then they should have just thrown out this bill completely. Tinkering round the edges does not deal with the fundamental issue of whether the Government should be allowed to lock someone up without trial.

This bill turns anyone who opposes the Government, or big business, into a terrorist who can be locked away indefinately without a chance to defend themselves. It turns a democracy into a police state. It destroys the basic rights that millions of people have fought and died for.

And the most sickening thing about it is that millions of people in this country think its a good idea
Comment by Uncarved Block — 9 Mar 2005 on 9:19 pm | Link
Mr Pooter; 25 years may not be so risible for some parts of the world when supplies (not just of oil but of its by-products too) are sporadic, coupled with burgeoning global warming and civil unrest as parts of the developed world start having to come to terms with interrupted supply. I also agree that Kyoto is merely paying lip-service to the problem; however, it is a first step and as such has to be seen as important.

However, taking into consideration all the projections (I wasn’t aware Hubberts curve had been discredited, apart from by opponents of the Peak Oil theory) and bearing in mind that some of these "political strategies" will take time to come into force, and even more time to be amended and strengthened etc etc. The point is, Blair is merely trying to put in place the framework for later misuse – in the same way that Bill Clinton laid some of the groundwork for George Bush to ride so roughshod over the US Constitution. There will come a time, 10 years into the future, 25 years into the future, who knows exactly when, when the unruly and unwashed citizens will arise as prices skyrocket; it could only be 5 years if some projections are accurate. When that time comes the political and economic elite need to have the full force of "the law" behind them; this is merely one of the first steps.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 9 Mar 2005 on 9:48 pm | Link
Papa – Sorry if I upset you by being forthright. Several points you made about Peak Oil were plain wrong "….oil is currently forecast to run out in around 25 years time." being the best example.

When politicians slime themselves off the hook by tipping their hats at an issue as serious as pollution in order to reassure the masses that they are doing something when in fact they are not, I see that as a backwards step not an advance. "Global warming? Don’t worry about that chaps, our government has signed up to Kyoto so we’ll be ok. Pity the Yanks and Chinese though, they haven’t signed it, poor fools."

Hubbert’s peak was predicated on a mathematical bell curve with 30% URR from any given oil field. North Sea oil has not produced such a peak, for example, the curve has been stretched into a bumpy plateaux as recovery technology has improved, pushing URR from wells to over 50%, albeit depending upon the geology. Besides technological advances Hubbert did not account for the effects of price and demand nor take adequate account of deep sea oil. For many years his ‘acolyte’, Campbell did not do so either. The latter has form for predicting the peak each year about a year ahead for many years. This is not to say he’s a false prophet, more to point out that oil reserve calculations are as much an art form as a science and that he lacks the skills of a Leonardo. His cries of warning began to sound like "Wolf, Wolf!" and have, to an extent, been counter-productive.
Comment by Mr Pooter — 10 Mar 2005 on 8:47 am | Link
Uncarved Block – You’ve got me agreeing with you now!

The Control Orders are bound to be over used and wrongly used, alienating even more people. In Northern Ireland in 1972 (?) they rounded up 450 odd people from absolutley crap MI5 and Special Branch lists of "known terrorists", subjecting them to sensory deprivation. This was the latest fashion in ‘non-torture’ torture at the time and involved hooding, wall standing ie leaning forwards with outstretched fingers supporting the whole body at an angle for HOURS with white noise blasted at you – ring any bells? The panic in government then, was as it is now. Problem was, most of the arrestees were ordinary, but aggravated folk who hated the totally bent way society favoured protestants with housing and jobs etc – and the blatant gerrymandering. Besides the torrent of headlines about British torture around the world and a couple of government reports (Parker ’72 & Bennet ’79) slagging off the idiot security people, the other ‘benefit’ of this panic was a shot of cocaine into the arms of the real nutters who gained enough catholic public support and silent sympathy to develop and succour their insurgency with it’s pointless, sadistic, butchery for the next 30 years. Those with shorter memories may wonder why the McCartney murder witnesses don’t trust the NIPS, well, the roots are back there in 1972.

Here’s a quote from Gardener: "The blame for this sorry story, if blame there be, must lie with those who, many years ago, decided that in emergency conditions in Colonial-type situations we should abandon our legal, well-tried and highly successful wartime interrogation methods and replace them by procedures which were secret, illegal, not morally justifiable and alien to the traditions of what I believe still to be the greatest democracy in the world."

I anticipate a similar report on Control Orders in the future. By then, we will have probably aliented the Muslim community, along with most liberals, and buried many dead.
Comment by Mr Pooter — 10 Mar 2005 on 9:04 am | Link
Lord Gardiner from the 1972 Parker report
Comment by Colonel Mad — 11 Mar 2005 on 12:48 am | Link
Thank you for the clarification, Colonel. I was a bit sloppy with the reference.

Of interest…

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/031205Y.shtml
Comment by Mr Pooter — 12 Mar 2005 on 6:37 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

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.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Tuesday, March 8, 2005

Anti Terror Legislation Bill

12 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries