Politics OnLine home

Politics OnLine UK

Uk Politics

November 2005


Anglican schism threat

A watched society

Daylight robbery

October 2005

I believe in...

In a world gone mad

September 2005

Hurricane Katrina

June 2005

an idea whose time had come

March 2005

The world that  we created

Rule of law breached

Terrorism and Law

December 2004

A most terrible thing

Identity cards

The morality error

November 2004

Butt out

Hunt ban

Colin Powell resigns

October 2004

US election

Fahrenheit 9/11

Troop request not political


Hostage killed

The personal is political

Jobz for the Boyz

Dear Mike, Iraq sucks

Tory conference 2004

The right is winning.

September 2004

Do what you will

De facto terrorism

Brutal honesty

Perish the thought

New Iraq war

The hunt

August 2004

Terrorism threat UK

July 2004

Hazel Blears MP

Geraldine Smith MP

Acts of terror

War and people

Fahrenheit 9/11

June 2004

The Sun

David Westwood

January 2004

Hutton report

Michael Howard's Tories?

Camp Xray

What is going on?

Protesters arrested

Hutton enquiry

Young people

Oh happy day!

Making a profit?

David Kelly

Row over 'sexed up' report

TA sent to Iraq

Crooks in suits

Dealing with Spam

Pensions outrage

Ink Cartridge scandal

Extradite and be damned

No confidence

Desperately seeking safety

Response to Mr Blair

Personal comments on the Bll of Rights

Bill of Rights


Uploaded: 23 September 2004

Justice or oppression? 

David Blunkett has announced that he is going to lift the blanket ban on covertly obtained intelligence as evidence in British courts. Good, I thought, perhaps we will see fewer people incarcerated without charge and without trial. That is part of his stated intention.

But hold on there, he goes on to say, he wants a fresh attempt to, "deal with people without putting them in jail", and is interested in creating a new offence of "acts preparatory to terrorism".

"He now believes that anyone found guilty of an association with a terrorist group, or involved in acts preparatory to terrorism should face a civil order that would restrict them having a bank account or from using the internet or computers.

"Such activity could be monitored and if restrictions were breached the individual would be in breach of the criminal law," Mr Blunkett said.

"It is about dealing with them without putting them in jail, and not about putting them in jail."

As a war dissenter I have long been aware that to be anti-war is to be considered pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-British. It has been a niggling reality all along. It's been part of the propaganda war of fear waged by Blair and Bush. 

May I also remind readers that it is Blunkett who said sharing credible information with us about terrorism was, 'Arrant nonsense'. 

The intelligence information used to justify the invasion of Iraq was wrong. The conclusions that the British government drew from the intelligence data was wrong. The British government was wrong to invade Iraq because its stated reasons were wrong. Protesters against arms have been arrested using the new Terrorism Act. 

Government is a matter of good faith. We vote, not knowing what a government is going to do, but in good faith that they will be true to their word, usually given in the shape of a manifesto. This government has been faithless and I am afraid that this site may well see its demise in Blunkett's creation of an offense of acts preparatory to terrorism. 

Watch this space.



Doubt me? Read this, because what happens in the US soon happens over here.

Guantanmo on the Hudson
While the police took a relaxed approach to Sunday's large protest against the Republican National Convention, during the week preemptive arrests became the norm. Almost 2,000 protestors have been arrested, compared to a total of six arrests during the Democratic National Convention. Even the The New York Press, a paper not known for its radical or progressive politics, puts it like this:

"The message sent by all the security preparations prior to the convention was clear, but never so perfectly encapsulated as this makes it. What the NYPD and the GOP are saying to protestors of every stripe (and New Yorkers in general) is this: 'If you don't agree with us, we look at you as enemy combatants, security threats and would-be terrorists. And we're going to treat you like the diseased cattle you are.' ... It was interesting to note that in the weeks just before the convention, we stopped hearing about the "terrorist threat" altogether. Instead, we were bombarded with stories about the threats posed by protestors. A few words were switched around, but the stories were essentially the same. The most disturbing bit of information concerning the West Side holding pen, however, was buried in the Post's account. Just a brief mention: 'Cops fear some protesters might hang around after the convention to disrupt other events, like the U.S. Open, so the [police holding pen at Pier 57] will remain open indefinitely.'

The U.S. Open? Other events? Like what, the 3rd Ave. Street Fair? The grand opening celebration at a new Payless Shoe Source in Queens?"



Keith Lindsay-Cameron 2004

Please submit comments and suggestions to: