Rejected Terror Bill

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by chrisch

Spotted this on the web this morning. The so-called police support for this is a bit thin it seems and the HoL is set to give the bill a rough time.

The bit that made me laff was tosspot Blair bleating on about "defying public opinion". Defying the Blairite desire to control everything and everybody more like.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/...647283,00.html

Chris

Aye Chris,

The other worrying thing about the way Tony Blair 'asked' Sir Ian Blair (no relation) to deploy the combined offices of the Met to lobby MPs on the topic also rasies questions about the unnecessary politicising of the police. The Met is not there to be used as political tool for the expedience of [any] government.

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by calski

Another worrying update along the lines of this thread was "Sir" John Stevens on tv this morning saying that killing a police officer should be a capital offence and that hanging should be brought back.

A not surprising knee-jerk response to whenever a cop is killed. The 'good' thing is that, whether we, the UK, wanted to or not [i.e. bring back capital punishment], we'd have to leave the EU to do so - not gonna happen any time soon (regarldess of my personal thoughts on the sanity of that move). John Major finally signed us up to a permanent, EU-wide abolition of CP when he was in power, and whilst it might still be available on the UK statute books for the crimes of High Treason, piracy on the high seas and setting fire to Her Majesty's Shipyards (dating back to Henry VIII and signifying this island's reliance on and the importance of the Royal Navy to defend the country - a job now replaced by Trident Subs), they'll never be used [with any seriousness] again. And no bad thing either.

Originally Posted by Calski

Ok, I'm obviously as upset as everyone about the death of a Policewoman and the shooting of another, but comments like this strike me a being totally opportunistic and out of line. Do people really think that bringing back the death penalty for killing a police man or woman will stop it happening? Of course it won't. Knee jerk reactions again which threaten to give us badly thought out legislation.

Dangerous Dogs Act?

Originally Posted by Calski

"Sir" John Stevens is not an elected official, nor is he an "active" police officer. Why was he making such ridiculous comments? To support the debated terror bill as it's read through the house of lords of course...

He's now a 'talking head for hire' (or, if we're feeling uncharitable, 'media whore'), as he's been Commissioner of the Met so knows the subject - just like they used to wheel out Ted Heath and other former PMs and noteworthies on any issue-du-jour. The topic's 'hot' and they need a sound-byte.

[chrisch]

Originally Posted by Mr T.

The other worrying thing about the way Tony Blair 'asked' Sir Ian Blair (no relation) to deploy the combined offices of the Met to lobby MPs on the topic also rasies questions about the unnecessary politicising of the police. The Met is not there to be used as political tool for the expedience of [any] government.

Mmmm I wasn't aware of that, but it sounds like TB. Sickening. I would also add that if Sir Ian "Bliar" went along with it he is about the same as the PM..

Whatever next? PC Marks going on about wet weather tyres.....

"I'm not a dentist but this toothpaste is the billy bollox"

"investments may go down as well as up, past performance is no guarantee of future performance"

"9 out of 10 cats said their owners were tossers"

"may contain nuts"

I mean just who can you believe??

Chris

[calski]

Actually, I think it was worse than perhaps that. IIRC, Bliar 1 and Bliar 2 were reprimanded because they requested that APCO (or ACPO?)lobby MPs for their constabularys - so they didn't just get the Met to lobby, but requested each Chief Constable to contact MPs for their areas...

Now THAT'S worrying...

calski

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by calski

Actually, I think it was worse than perhaps that. IIRC, Bliar 1 and Bliar 2 were reprimanded because they requested that APCO (or ACPO?)lobby MPs for their constabularys - so they didn't just get the Met to lobby, but requested each Chief Constable to contact MPs for their areas...

Now THAT'S worrying...

calski

Here ya go:


Clarke admits police lobbying move
By George Jones and John Steele
(Filed: 12/11/2005)


Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, admits today that he urged chief constables to lobby MPs to support the Government's anti-terrorism proposals.

In a letter to The Daily Telegraph he says that on Nov 3 - the day after the Government realised that it was likely to lose a vote on giving police officers 90 days to hold suspects without charge - he approached the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo).



Charles Clarke admits he approached Acpo

Mr Clarke says he "suggested to Acpo that chief constables write to MPs in their police authority area, making themselves or relevant senior police officers available to MPs, of all parties, who wanted to know their local police attitude on these issues".

He says he "naturally made clear that this should not be on a party political basis" and denies that the Government sought to politicise the police.

But John Denham, the Labour chairman of the cross-party Commons home affairs committee, said MPs would be free to raise their concerns about the politicisation of the police force during an investigation into chief constables' arguments for extending anti-terrorism powers.

Mr Denham voted for the defeated 90-day proposal but strongly criticised the way in which the case was made by the police. He said there had been no proper police working group, no systematic assessment and no evaluation of the difference between 30, 60, 90 or 120 days.

Many chief constables telephoned, e-mailed or wrote to their MPs, urging them to back the measures, although it emerged yesterday that some stopped short of active lobbying. Separate investigations by The Daily Telegraph and the Conservative Party have shown that at least eight of the 43 police chiefs in England and Wales did not approach their MPs.

The Hampshire force said that when Acpo sent a letter to chief constables urging "pro-active" lobbying of MPs it issued a media release supporting the measures contained in the Terrorism Bill. But it added: "The chief constable did not write to MPs. He did, however, gladly respond to inquiries from MPs who sought impartial professional advice."

Cleveland said it was "not pro-active". Sean Price, the chief constable, informed one MP of his support when the MP contacted the force.

Cumbria said its chief constable, Michael Baxter, was away at the time the Acpo letter was circulated and did not contact MPs. At the request of one local MP, the force sent out the Acpo material.

Colin Cramphorn, West Yorkshire's chief constable, was also away and no MPs were contacted.

Derbyshire's chief constable, David Coleman, did not correspond with MPs, although his views were sought at a public meeting.

Alastair McWhirter, the chief constable of Suffolk, did not lobby MPs, nor did Steven Green, the chief constable of Nottinghamshire.

In Hertfordshire, the chief constable, Frank Whiteley, sent the Acpo letter to MPs with a covering letter which made clear that he supported an extension of custody but that it was for MPs to decide whether 90 days was right.

Leicestershire police said its chief constable, Matt Baggott, supported the 90-day period but had expressed a view only when approached by MPs.
Peter Maddison, the chief constable of Northamptonshire, was said by his force to "support the 90 days but [he] thought that this issue was a matter for Parliament and didn't lobby local MPs".

West Midlands police summed up the assertion of a number of forces that their communications with MPs did not amount to lobbying.

Kent said its chief constable, Michael Fuller, "did not seek to influence how the MPs voted, but simply to provide information from a police perspective".