I hear  that the HoL have rejected 42 days by  a majority of 191

An interesting web-site : http://42writers.com/


"The site is constructed as a calendar to illustrate graphically the
sheer length of time it is proposed that a person be held without
being charged with any offence. Simply click on a day to open up a
text from one of the 42 writers who have contributed to the project.
You may find a story, an essay, a poem, a statement or even an
interview – all a response to the simple question ‘What do you think
of the proposed extension to 42 Days?’"

judith wrote:
> I hear  that the HoL have rejected 42 days by  a majority of 191

Wait for the spin  - terrorist-loving oldsters destroy much-needed govt 
policy to save children & puppies which will never ever be misused no 
certainly not.  .




-- 
Criticising the government is not illegal, but on investigation often
turns out to be linked to other offences

"Steve Walker"  wrote in message 
news:6lhiquFcfseeU1@mid.individual.net...
> judith wrote:
>> I hear  that the HoL have rejected 42 days by  a majority of 191


I am very glad to hear it.

If only this could be the start of restoration of civil liberties and 
personal freedom more generally.

Andrew McGee wrote:
> 
> "Steve Walker"  wrote in message 
> news:6lhiquFcfseeU1@mid.individual.net...
>> judith wrote:
>>> I hear  that the HoL have rejected 42 days by  a majority of 191
> 
> 
> I am very glad to hear it.
> 
> If only this could be the start of restoration of civil liberties and 
> personal freedom more generally.
> 

I doubt it. The proceedings against the Iceland bank has been instigated 
using this lots anti-terrorism laws.

"Humpty Eggy"  wrote in message news:gd066j$446$1@aioe.org...
>>
> I doubt it. The proceedings against the Iceland bank has been instigated 
> using this lots anti-terrorism laws.
>

Indeed, and I haven't heard as much as a bleat of protest about how running 
into financial problems makes you a terrorist?

Anyway, by definition, doesn't this ruling make the entire HoL more of a 
terrorist threat than pensioners who leave their wheely-bins out on the 
wrong day?

Andrew McGee wrote:
> "Steve Walker"  wrote in message
> news:6lhiquFcfseeU1@mid.individual.net...
>> judith wrote:
>>> I hear  that the HoL have rejected 42 days by  a majority of 191
>
>
> I am very glad to hear it.
>
> If only this could be the start of restoration of civil liberties and
> personal freedom more generally.


Indeed.   As a callow young "Wolfie Smith" I thought the HoL and judiciary 
were the spawn of the devil, I now rely upon them for my scarce remaining 
freedoms.

-- 
Criticising the government is not illegal, but on investigation often
turns out to be linked to other offences

"judith"  wrote in message 
news:h847f4hg0eq5ml5l0l9rcv8vha0p4rr5f9@4ax.com...
>I hear  that the HoL have rejected 42 days by  a majority of 191
>
> An interesting web-site : http://42writers.com/
>
>
> "The site is constructed as a calendar to illustrate graphically the
> sheer length of time it is proposed that a person be held without
> being charged with any offence. Simply click on a day to open up a
> text from one of the 42 writers who have contributed to the project.
> You may find a story, an essay, a poem, a statement or even an
> interview - all a response to the simple question 'What do you think
> of the proposed extension to 42 Days?'"

As the existing laws have already been misused - by Councils to spy on waste 
bins and to catch parents sending their children to the wrong school, and 
also by the Government against the Icelandic banks, what confidence would we 
have that the 42 days would not be abused?
B.

"judith"  wrote in message 
news:h847f4hg0eq5ml5l0l9rcv8vha0p4rr5f9@4ax.com...
>I hear  that the HoL have rejected 42 days by  a majority of 191
>

It was announced in the news this morning that Jacqui Smith has already 
slipped the 42 day detention into another bill.

"M.I.5¾"  wrote in message 
news:48f4577c$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>
> "judith"  wrote in message 
> news:h847f4hg0eq5ml5l0l9rcv8vha0p4rr5f9@4ax.com...
>>I hear  that the HoL have rejected 42 days by  a majority of 191
>>
>
> It was announced in the news this morning that Jacqui Smith has already 
> slipped the 42 day detention into another bill.
>

A similar bill to the one that permitted the UK Government to label the 
Icelandic Government (and, by definition, its people) terrorists and to 
freeze Icelandic assets in the UK no doubt.