"Gordon Brown is preparing for a humiliating climbdown over his proposal to 
hold terrorist suspects for 42 days after being told that it will be 
defeated in the House of Lords.

Ministers admit privately that there is not "a cat in Hell's chance" of the 
legislation, which returns to the Lords this week, being passed into law."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4887653.ece

DVH wrote:
> "Gordon Brown is preparing for a humiliating climbdown over his proposal to 
> hold terrorist suspects for 42 days after being told that it will be 
> defeated in the House of Lords.
> 
> Ministers admit privately that there is not "a cat in Hell's chance" of the 
> legislation, which returns to the Lords this week, being passed into law."
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4887653.ece 
> 
> 

I'll believe this when I see it. This government has ways of getting 
it's own way - use the Parliament Act.

"Maria"  wrote in message 
news:R62dnQHlz9gVZnTV4p2dnAA@bt.com...
> DVH wrote:
>> "Gordon Brown is preparing for a humiliating climbdown over his proposal 
>> to hold terrorist suspects for 42 days after being told that it will be 
>> defeated in the House of Lords.
>>
>> Ministers admit privately that there is not "a cat in Hell's chance" of 
>> the legislation, which returns to the Lords this week, being passed into 
>> law."
>>
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4887653.ece
>
> I'll believe this when I see it. This government has ways of getting it's 
> own way - use the Parliament Act.

In this particular case, the legislation was effectively killed by its own 
"safeguards".

True Blue wrote:
> "Maria"  wrote in message 
> news:R62dnQHlz9gVZnTV4p2dnAA@bt.com...
>> DVH wrote:
>>> "Gordon Brown is preparing for a humiliating climbdown over his proposal 
>>> to hold terrorist suspects for 42 days after being told that it will be 
>>> defeated in the House of Lords.
>>>
>>> Ministers admit privately that there is not "a cat in Hell's chance" of 
>>> the legislation, which returns to the Lords this week, being passed into 
>>> law."
>>>
>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4887653.ece
>> I'll believe this when I see it. This government has ways of getting it's 
>> own way - use the Parliament Act.
> 
> In this particular case, the legislation was effectively killed by its own 
> "safeguards". 
> 
> 
Killed or just under anaesthesia? Can't they just rewrite the Bill and 
try again?

On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:39:06 +0100, Maria wrote:
> True Blue wrote:
> > "Maria"  wrote in message 
> > news:R62dnQHlz9gVZnTV4p2dnAA@bt.com...
> >> DVH wrote:
> >>> "Gordon Brown is preparing for a humiliating climbdown over his proposal 
> >>> to hold terrorist suspects for 42 days after being told that it will be 
> >>> defeated in the House of Lords.
> >>>
> >>> Ministers admit privately that there is not "a cat in Hell's chance" of 
> >>> the legislation, which returns to the Lords this week, being passed into 
> >>> law."
> >>>
> >>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4887653.ece
> >> I'll believe this when I see it. This government has ways of getting it's 
> >> own way - use the Parliament Act.
> > 
> > In this particular case, the legislation was effectively killed by its own 
> > "safeguards". 
> > 
> > 
> Killed or just under anaesthesia? Can't they just rewrite the Bill and 
> try again?
> 

Of course - but they'll just run into the same problems. Since they're 
highly likely to lose the next election (quite spectacularly), I think 
we've seen the back of this one for a few years


-- 
Cheers!
Ade.

On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:39:06 +0100, Maria wrote:

>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4887653.ece
>> In this particular case, the legislation was effectively killed by its
>> own "safeguards".
>> 
>> 
> Killed or just under anaesthesia? Can't they just rewrite the Bill and
> try again?

Surely they can use a statutory instrument to push it through without 
debate, New Liebour are great fans of using it.

"Ar"  wrote in message 
news:48ea1bae$0$16374$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:39:06 +0100, Maria wrote:
>
>>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4887653.ece
>>> In this particular case, the legislation was effectively killed by its
>>> own "safeguards".
>>>
>>>
>> Killed or just under anaesthesia? Can't they just rewrite the Bill and
>> try again?
>
> Surely they can use a statutory instrument to push it through without
> debate, New Liebour are great fans of using it.

Nope.

You need 'primary legislation' to extend the period before Habeas Corpus can 
be invoked.

-- 
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

DVH wrote:
> "Gordon Brown is preparing for a humiliating climbdown over his proposal to 
> hold terrorist suspects for 42 days after being told that it will be 
> defeated in the House of Lords.
> 
> Ministers admit privately that there is not "a cat in Hell's chance" of the 
> legislation, which returns to the Lords this week, being passed into law."
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4887653.ece 
> 

I won't believe it until the measure has been defeated in the Lords and 
the government has ruled out using the Parliament Act, and even then I'd 
only rule out a reappearance, or some other attempt to increase the 
pre-charge period, for a few years.

The next paragraph in the Times article states:

"The Government has decided against using the Parliament Act to force 
the measure through after peers reject it, The Times has learnt. That 
decision will effectively confine the controversial proposal — which the 
Prime Minister fought tooth and nail to get through a Commons vote in 
June — to the legislative dustbin."

If a named source had made the claim I might be more willing to believe it.

If the government will rule out the use of the Parliament Act, then ISTM 
that means 42 days is dead this side of the next general election or the 
next terrorist attack, whichever comes sooner.

Suppose there were a terrorist attack sometime next year, what are the 
odds of the current government NOT trying to reintroduce the measure, or 
otherwise increase the pre-charge period, in the wake of such an attack?

Suppose there were a terrorist attack sometime after the next election, 
would that future government use the situation to revive 42 days?

There will be pressure on the government to "do something" after any 
terrorist attack and the easiest way they can be seen to be doing 
something is to present a controversial law to Parliament.

We already know this government favours that modus operandi, would a 
Cameron government find a better way of dealing with that pressure to do 
something?

James

Ar wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:39:06 +0100, Maria wrote:
> 
>>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4887653.ece
>>> In this particular case, the legislation was effectively killed by its
>>> own "safeguards".
>>>
>>>
>> Killed or just under anaesthesia? Can't they just rewrite the Bill and
>> try again?
> 
> Surely they can use a statutory instrument to push it through without 
> debate, New Liebour are great fans of using it.

I doubt it. Without invoking a state of emergency, about the only 
legislation that could be used to try such a thing is the Legislative 
and Regulatory Reform Act (LRR Act). Bad as that Act is, I'm not sure 
that it permits extending pre-charge detention.

Firstly, the orders issued under it must comply with the Human Rights 
Act, and can be subjected to judicial review.

Secondly the LRR Act itself states that any provision made under it must 
meet, in the judgement of the Minister issuing it, various conditions 
including the following:

"# the provision does not remove any necessary protection,
  # the provision does not prevent any person from continuing to exercise
    any right or freedom which that person might reasonably expect to
    continue to exercise,
  # the provision is not of constitutional significance. "

ISTM all three of these could be used in arguing against it both in 
Parliament and in any subsequent legal challenge.

I doubt the government would wish to (a) generate so much heat this side 
of an election (b) bring the LRR Act into disrepute by using it in such 
a blatantly dictatorial manner at this stage.

James

In message , Maria 
 writes:
>DVH wrote:
>> "Gordon Brown is preparing for a humiliating climbdown over his 
>>proposal to  hold terrorist suspects for 42 days after being told that 
>>it will be  defeated in the House of Lords.
>>  Ministers admit privately that there is not "a cat in Hell's chance" 
>>of the  legislation, which returns to the Lords this week, being 
>>passed into law."
>>  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4887653.ece
>
>I'll believe this when I see it. This government has ways of getting 
>it's own way - use the Parliament Act.

Tricky.  If that Lords reject it, it has to be voted through the Commons 
again.  With Dame Manningham-Buller using her maiden speech to tell the 
Government that it's absolutely and completely wrong in its belief that 
this will help fight terrorism on either a practical or principled 
basis[0], there's every chance the Commons will waiver - who knows more 
about terrorism, Jacqui Smith or Dame Mannigham-Buller?  And Brown 
probably doesn't want the DUP bribery press again.

That, and there's no crisis, legal requirement, or mandate.  Even the 
hunting bill had a reasonable manifesto commitment backing it, when 
Labour had committed to resolving the issue in the next Parliament.


[0] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7494799.stm

-- 
Miss Baltimore Crabs

On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:39:06 +0100, Maria 
wrote:

>True Blue wrote:
>> "Maria"  wrote in message 
>> news:R62dnQHlz9gVZnTV4p2dnAA@bt.com...
>>> DVH wrote:
>>>> "Gordon Brown is preparing for a humiliating climbdown over his proposal 
>>>> to hold terrorist suspects for 42 days after being told that it will be 
>>>> defeated in the House of Lords.
>>>>
>>>> Ministers admit privately that there is not "a cat in Hell's chance" of 
>>>> the legislation, which returns to the Lords this week, being passed into 
>>>> law."
>>>>
>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4887653.ece
>>> I'll believe this when I see it. This government has ways of getting it's 
>>> own way - use the Parliament Act.
>> 
>> In this particular case, the legislation was effectively killed by its own 
>> "safeguards". 
>> 
>> 
>Killed or just under anaesthesia? Can't they just rewrite the Bill and 
>try again?

They don't have much time left before the next election. Why do you
think Mandy, including kidney stones, was brought back in a rush from
the oblivion he has existed in for three years?

MM

On 06 Oct 2008 14:07:42 GMT, Ar  wrote:

>On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:39:06 +0100, Maria wrote:
>
>>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4887653.ece
>>> In this particular case, the legislation was effectively killed by its
>>> own "safeguards".
>>> 
>>> 
>> Killed or just under anaesthesia? Can't they just rewrite the Bill and
>> try again?
>
>Surely they can use a statutory instrument to push it through without 
>debate, New Liebour are great fans of using it.

No, it's too big a deal for Jackboots to just give it the nod.

I think after the Irish involvement they never really had any great
confidence that it would see the light of day.

MM

On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 at 12:50:31, Maria  wrote in 
uk.politics.id-cards :

>DVH wrote:
>> "Gordon Brown is preparing for a humiliating climbdown over his 
>>proposal to  hold terrorist suspects for 42 days after being told that 
>>it will be  defeated in the House of Lords.
>>  Ministers admit privately that there is not "a cat in Hell's chance" 
>>of the  legislation, which returns to the Lords this week, being 
>>passed into law."
>>  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4887653.ece
>
>I'll believe this when I see it. This government has ways of getting 
>it's own way - use the Parliament Act.

Except that, by the time that could be used, we'd be knocking on the 
door of the GE.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham