The Inquiries Act

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Nugget

However, I've been aware of the work 'recession' for quite a while but, to be fair, that's mostly with regarsd to the state of my hairline

Or Word?

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Just another example that this government have manifested themselves into Orwells Pigs.

You need no more evidence that this is not a Labour government. I don't know what they should call themselves but they are not Labour.

Labour=Communists at heart...........this is exactly how communists operate.......

[BBKing]

Labour=Communists at heart...........this is exactly how communists operate

Communists wouldn't come up with PFI or support rail privatisation, though, so that's a bit simplistic. It's how any totalitarian state operates, in a more general sense.

John Reid was a communist, wasn't he?

the thought of being instantly detected would be enough to put most off

Presumably the Malaysians haven't discovered the advanced technological concept of 'gloves'.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by BBKing

Presumably the Malaysians haven't discovered the advanced technological concept of 'gloves'.

Don't you watch columbo? they just tell the suspect they can turn the gloves inside out and get fingerprints from the inside, then he confesses

DNA would be a better sample to take, most people find it very hard not to shed skin or hairs.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Labour=Communists at heart...........this is exactly how communists operate.......

You don't have to be communist to introduce laws like this, plenty of right wing authoritarian regimes would be happy to do the same.

[BBKing]

Can we have an independent inquiry into whether New Labour is a left-wing or right-wing authoritarian regime? Not any more!*



* there's a serious point here - if a Government can effectively hide the way it goes about its business from the people, the people won't really know what they're voting for, which is bad for democracy.

[Flubflow]

Originally Posted by BBKing

Quite right, Pierre. Throw in the CCA and the anti-terrorism legislation and it all looks part of a very unpleasant pattern.

What's interesting is that this didn't start until the second Labour administration - the first (1997) lot with Straw in the Home Office and Irvine as Lord Chancellor actuallsy swung the other way, in favour of human rights, the rule of law and judicial independence. Falconer and Blunkett are therefore the bad boys here, particularly Blunkett, who has deeply authoritarian instincts akin to those in Burma or Belarus.

Blunkett was on Radio 5 again yesterday afternoon with that smarmy spurs supporting git Simon Mayo - he's been on there about three times since he was forced to resign in disgrace, and always gets a worryingly easy ride (particularly on ID cards, which he blatantly lies about every time I hear him). I'm not sure it's in the BBC's charter to rehabilitate Tony Blair's friends.

According to Private Eye, Blunkett has earned £70,000 since resigning from these appearances and other media work. Coincidentally that's the rental he hasn't paid on his ministerial house, which he's allowed to live in rent-free by Mr. Tony. Didn't see that one in the Labour manifesto - get caught breaking the rules and get a free house. I must try fiddling my expenses and see if it works for me.

It pretty much started as soon as they got in power actually. Remember the RIP act (now Bill and law)? That was Straw's baby (the whipping around was done by none other than the then unelected Labour Chairman Charles "Big Ears" Clarke).

When Blunkett became Home secretary he initially seemed to me to be the type that might be firm but very respectful to both the people and the judiciary but almost immediately he turned out to be agenda led as well as being a just generally thick and gittish.
Maybe it is just the very nature of the post of Home Secretary itself that so easily turns weak flawed characters into ar$eholes who then see it as their big chance to make their mark by virtue of not listening to a damn thing that anyone outside his own fan club tells him.
It seems to me that Labour are changing/creating laws that have a sort of side effect of making it easier for them to stay in power. It will bite them in the bum in the end.

[BBKing]

It will bite them in the bum in the end.

How? Since it's hard to explain the intricacies of poor legislation to people who think Big Brother is 10 weeks of sofa-bound vegetative behaviour in the summer, the only way Labour will lose is when people get bored with them, which will probably be at the next election.

What will bite them in the mean time is the new unofficial opposition of the judiciary (the point about Straw and Irvine is that they *increased* the power of the judiciary with things like the Human Rights Act which allows all other legislation to be struck down if incompatible, as happened with Blunkett's original anti-terror rubbish).

Judges and the executive are therefore having a lot of tussles at the moment (if there's a judge who likes Clarke and Blunkett I haven't met him, my contacts tell me that most judges would speed up if either man were observed crossing the road ahead of them, confident that the beak in the subsequent murder trial would look very favourably on it).

Now, ideally you don't have to rely on unelected legal experts to hold the Government to account, because in Parliament you have a proper, functioning opposition. We have Michael's Muppet Squad, which really isn't good enough, hence it's important to watch what the Government does to the judges and vice versa - including the Inquiries Act, which is a definite land-grab from the judiciary.

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by scastle

Or Word?

Hur hur - busted

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by BBKing

Communists wouldn't come up with PFI or support rail privatisation, though, so that's a bit simplistic. It's how any totalitarian state operates, in a more general sense.

In a general sense, yes...........but we are discussing labour atm..........and they are, at heart, communists.

[BBKing]

and they are, at heart, communists

I was disagreeing with you, saying that they are, at heart, Thatcherite on economic policy, with authoritarian tendencies everywhere else. Don't look at the labels or the history, look at the actions.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by BBKing

I was disagreeing with you, saying that they are, at heart, Thatcherite on economic policy, with authoritarian tendencies everywhere else. Don't look at the labels or the history, look at the actions.

You are talking about new labour......but new labour will eventually revert back to old labour -- who, deep down, are communists.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

You are talking about new labour......but new labour will eventually revert back to old labour -- who, deep down, are communists.

And equalyy totalitarian in their way ... we're screwed whatever happens.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Chris T

And equalyy totalitarian in their way ... we're screwed whatever happens.

Pretty much!

Er, aren't Labour's roots in democratic Socialism, not Communism?


EDIT: And hope not to have offended Nug with talk of 'roots' as sounds like that's all that's left of his hairline.