Skip to main content

Internment (the 90 days issue)

The amendments on this issue have been "selected by the speaker". He has selected a committee amendment to replace three months with 90 days then 60 then 28.

There is a tactical aspect to this. If the 90 days amendment passed then the others would fall. Strictly the 90 days is an improvement on three months. However, there is a need to vote tactically on this.

The underlying issue, however, remains the same.

If we introduce Internment in England we are likely to see an increase in violence. This could arise from a range of sources. The new laws will apply to Animal Rights Activists who may not kill people, but do damage. They will also apply to a wide range of other fanatics.

There are issues that need to be looked at like the resources available to forensics and issues like facilitating an early charge (even if on a lesser offence). There is nothing in law that prevents a reinterview after an initial charge. The matter that confuses me is why Blair is driving this particular route when there are quite straightforward solutions to a problem that do not cause the same difficulties.

In early morning discussions in the tea room (over breakfast) it was felt that they key issue on the votes will be which way the tory rebels go.

Whatever happens today the real problems will remain. I will be liaising with the Police and the legal profession to find a way forward. This will be necessary as even if the 90 days is brought in the same problems will remain. (and the 90 days will generate its own substantial problem).

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men: