Tuesday, March 08, 2005

Terrorism laws

Is it just me who finds it ironic that it's the unelected chamber that's sticking up for the civil and human rights of the people of the country, whilst the elected chamber just meekly allows bad legislation through Parliament? It's always fun when the Lords blocks government bills, and the constitutional function of the second chamber has never seemed more important to me than now, when the government is trying to push through bad law, and is using its majority to railroad it through the Commons. I seriously dislike the new legislation and any safeguards that the Lords can add will be welcome, although the Register debunked the "concession" that Charles Clarke made when the bill was going through the Commons (and what a debacle that was!), and others would argue that it doesn't matter who's giving the order; house arrest is house arrest. I've got a great deal of sympathy for this point of view, but I, grudgingly, accept that some concessions may have to be made to protect the secret services under some circumstances, but those should be much more restricted than this bill allows for, and such evidence should be brought into the courts as much as possible.

On an entirely different note, I'm not entirely sure if I believe this story, but if it's true, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Oh, and it was all going so well not too bad, and the IRA goes and says something incredibly silly.

Blogger button Comments facility provided by blogKomm