The Government suffered a truly massive kicking in the House of Lords over it’s cynical “Vote For Us & We’ll Protect You From Terrorists” bill.
Jacky Smith read her script in the commons in the customary lack lustre fashion: Her drunken spin was seen tripping over the truth and crashing into solid evidence before falling into the road, only to be run over by a truck driven by wide eyed and alert Lords.
The fundamental argument she made were as always: “It may be useful in the future, we don’t know, so lets have it just in case”; “we, uniquely in all the world, need 42 days when no-one else does”; “We are fighting a new & unique menace”, and so we need new and uniquely menacing legislation.
Everyone else mocked her and the Government’s stance as transparent terrorbollocks pandering to Daily Mail headlines and engaging in political machismo, as Geeklawyer has said many times before, in the hope of getting more votes.
I do agree…… but is 28 days any more rational?
I do miss hanging out on your blog….I’ll sign off and we’ll meet soon at the old Dog & Duck….
Bon Chance mon brave… good that you got to the top of Mount Fuji.. No doubt, we shall meet on Twitter
Grsnted some figure is rational but it must be sensible & supported by evidence of a geuine need. 42 wasn’t. Not sure 28 was either but such is politics. 14 maybe fair. Don’t know. I do know that 42 days is bollocks.
She’s right about it maybe being useful in the future. I mean, look how handy legislation was against those terrorist Icelandic banks?