Rescuing Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected Dictatorship
|
Spin,
not face-to-face confrontations with the voters, is the Government's
chosen method of communication. Ordinary people are dangerous. Ordinary
people might ask a question which throws a politician 'off message';
the Cabinet member might reveal himself or herself to be a human being
like us, and not a programmed android. Worse still, he or she might
tell the truth.
Ann Leslie - Daily Mail, September 16, 2004
Blair wants to leave his
mark on history - looks more like a stain to me.
Peter Thorndyke, Diss,
Norfolk - Daily Mail, May 23, 2005
I know I'm me - why do I
need an ID card?
"Sorry, officers, I
don't have an ID card. I never applied for one. It seemed a bit steep
at 300 quid. I do have my free passport, my driving licence and my
London freedom travel pass, each with my photograph. I have my NHS
medical card, with its lengthy number, given me at birth, my RAF
service book with my Armed Forces number, and a chit authorising me to
wear a few gongs -including a General Service Medal with Malaya bar,
for fighting communist terrorists on behalf of my country, or so they
told me.
"I've also got various credit
cards and store cards, all with my signature on the back, generally
good for buying the everyday requrements for life as well as the odd
luxury. If you decide to arrest me, I suppose I'll have to be
photographed and given another number, besides my PINs.
"I'm afraid I haven't got a
pension book; it was taken away."
"By thieves, sir?"
"No ... well, not exactly. By the
Government. By the way, may I see your warrant cards please, gentlemen?"
Oh dear, they've disappeared. E.
Harry Gumer, Romford, ESSEX - Daily Mail, June 1, 2005
NO means NO
When does NO mean MAYBE?
When it's not the answer the EU wants.
With the
courageous French NON resounding in their ears, shabby, undemocratic
self-interested leaders of Europe propose ignoring the part of their
precious constitution that requires ratification by all members and
continuing without one of the biggest founder members to prevent
derailing the gravy train.
As in Ireland,
they refuse to accept any NO votes, ignoring the will of the people,
and re-stage votes until they can engineer the 'correct' answer. Sadly,
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw dances to their tune like a puppet on a
string. With tactics such as these, how can anyone really believe the
EU has our interests at heart. Letter from Steve Penny, Kingsnorth, Kent - Daily
Mail, June1, 2005
Surely
the French result makes the £1million the EU recently spent on a
treaty signing ceremony seem a trifle premature and extravagant. Letter from Keith Wiseman, Bury, Lancs. - Daily Mail,
June1, 2005
|
May 31, 2005 (761 days since war
ended)
Death Toll: 1,657 US - 89 UK - >6,164?
Iraqi - >17,300 civilians - 25 media
June 17, 2005 (779 days since war
ended)
Death Toll: 1,716 US - 89 UK -
>6,164? Iraqi - >17,300? civilians - 25 media
June 26, 2005 (788 days since war
ended)
Death Toll: 1,737 US - 89 UK -
>6,164? Iraqi - >17,300? civilians - 25 media
July 6, 2005 (798 days since war
ended)
Death Toll: 1,751 US - 90 UK -
>6,164? Iraqi - >17,300? civilians - 25 media
August 24, 2005 (847 days since
war ended)
Death Toll: 1,869 US - 93 UK - >>6,164?
Iraqi - >>17,300? civilians - 25 media
September
29, 2005 (883 days since war ended)
Death Toll: 1,928 US - 96 UK - >>6,164?
Iraqi - >>17,300? civilians - 25 media
October
11, 2005 (895 days since war ended)
Death Toll: 1,956 US - 96UK - >>6,164?
Iraqi - >>17,300? civilians - 25 media
Britain has
traditionally been one of the biggest net contributors to the EU
because we do not get as much money back from Brussels in farm and
regional subsidies as our rivals.
According to
Treasury figures, between 1995-2002, Britain's average contribution
taking the rebate into account, was £2.6billion, or £43.55
per head of population.
The French -
the biggest recipient of farm subsidies - contributed £1billion a
year or £16.08 per head of their population.
|
Blair
in dock over his case for terror laws
JAMES
KIRKUP - WESTMINSTER EDITOR - THE SCOTSMAN - OCTOBER 17, 2005
Key
points
• Tony Blair is facing questions over MI5's backing of the
Terrorism Bill
• The Bill will allow suspects to be detained for up to 90
days without charge
• According to one official, MI5 made no request to extent
the detention period
Key
quote
"Given this government's record of making claims of this
kind about the position of the intelligence and Security Services,
I am extremely sceptical that the Security Service has made the
recommendation being suggested," - Dominic Grieve, shadow
attorney general
TONY
Blair and the minister in charge of counter-terrorism are facing
questions about whether they misled the public over MI5's backing
for the government's controversial new Terrorism Bill.
Opposition
MPs have challenged the government to prove claims by the Prime
Minister and HazelBlears, the Home Office minister overseeing
the bill, that the Security Service has recommended a crucial
part of the legislation.
In
an echo of previous controversies over the veracity of government
statements about the intelligence and Security Services - such
as the row over the "sexing- up" of intelligence over
Iraqi weapons programmes - Whitehall insiders have cast grave
doubt on claims made by Mr Blair and Ms Blears about the Security
Service, also known as MI5.
The
Terrorism Bill, published last week, would allow police officers
to detain suspects without charge for up to 90 days. Under current
law, suspects must be charged or released in 14 days. The proposal
has been criticised by opposition parties, civil rights groups
and even the government's own terror law watchdog. Ministers,
led by Mr Blair, say they have been convinced by arguments for
the change made by senior police officers. The Association of
Chief Police Officers has publicly called for the new rule.
On
5 August, before the bill was published, Mr Blair clearly suggested
that MI5 was also backing the move. "We will also examine
whether the necessary procedure can be brought about to give us
a way of meeting the police and Security Service request that
detention, pre-charge of terrorist suspects, be significantly
extended," the Prime Minister said at a Press conference.
And
last week, on the day the bill was published, Ms Blears also said
that the Security Service, had argued for the 90-day rule. "The
three-month period is what the police and Security Service say
is necessary," Ms Blears said last Wednesday at the Home
Office.
In
fact, The Scotsman has learned from credible Whitehall sources
that MI5 has not given any such advice to ministers. The police
proposal for the 90-day rule was made at a Whitehall meeting of
senior security officials in the wake of the 7 July suicide attacks
on London.
According
to one official who was briefed on the meeting, MI5 made no request
for an extension in the detention period. Nor has the Security
Service expressed a view on the need for the rule in its informal
discussions with ministers since.
"MI5
were present at the conversations, but they made no recommendations
on the detention period," said a Whitehall official involved
in the discussions. The 90-day proposal "was police-led.
It originated only with the police".
Security
sources say that MI5 chiefs take the view that their service has
no role in recommending specific policies to ministers.
The
Security Service has not objected to the 90-day proposal, either.
"They don't object to it in any way, but it didn't come from
them and they're not pushing for it - that's not what they do,"
said a Whitehall official. "It would not be accurate to say
they have said it is necessary."
Mr
Blair's comment remains on the Downing Street website. The Prime
Minister's official spokes-man declined to repeat the assertion
that the Security Service had recommended the 90-day rule, confirming
only that MI5 officials had been present at meetings to draw up
the bill.
As
for what, if any, advice MI5 had given, the spokesman said only:
"We never comment on the advice of the Security Service."
Ms
Blears' remark, made to a group of journalists at a Home Office
briefing, was reported in several national newspapers last Thursday.
The Home Office has not challenged the accuracy of those remarks.
Asked by The Scotsman to reiterate Ms Blears' comments about the
Security Service and the Terrorism Bill, the Home Office last
night issued a statement failing to back up the minister's position.
"This
extension is necessary as the police and law enforcement agencies
have to take on increasingly complex and international terrorist
organisations who make ever-greater use of new technology such
as encrypted computers," the department said.
Dominic
Grieve, the shadow attorney general, yesterday said he was "very
concerned" that MI5's position could have been misrepresented.
"Given
this government's record of making claims of this kind about the
position of the intelligence and Security Services, I am extremely
sceptical that the Security Service has made the recommendation
being suggested," he said. "If
there is any evidence to support this, it must be published, if
not in parliament, then to the Intelligence and Security Committee."
Mark
Oaten, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, agreed. "If
the government is going to say that the Security Service is recommending
this power, then they should publish the evidence to support that
claim.
On something as fundamental and serious as this, the government
should make available the advice of the Security Service before
MPs debate the bill."
Since
August, Mr Blair has not suggested the new measures were recommended
by MI5.
Charles
Clarke, the Home Secretary, has been even more reticent. He surprised
MPs on the Home Affairs Committee last month when he admitted
the Security Service had not actually advised ministers that foreign-born
"hate preachers" should be deported to their home countries.
If you have
suggestions for additional subjects, or material to include in the
pages linked to the subjects listed, please contact the webmaster.
