Britain to Repeal Magna Carta

[Womble]

Tony Blair explains in a Sunday Times op-ed why basic liberties Englishmen have considered a birthright since Magna Carta are no longer convenient.

I say hang the traitor :-)

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...l_magna_carta/

[Anonymouse]

When are these idiots going to stop calling the whole thing 'the War on Terror'? It is NOT a war. Wars are declared between two or more governments because there is no other way (allegedly) of settling a major dispute.

We are not at war with Iraq. Or Afghanistan. Or any other bloody country from which these terrorist nutters come (not counting the nutters who come from this country, of course). The current hysteria is a result of a few - a few - extremists who are doing all this under the delusion that they're doing what Allah or whoever wants. Without a formal declaration of war, there is no war. These lunatics do not represent their country, or their alleged faith.

During WWII, yes, I suppose such measures as described in the article were necessary; there were German spies in the UK, and there was a war on. If we actually were at war now, people would accept such measures, in the certain knowledge that they would no longer be used once the war was over. But even then the police and/or military had to have reasonable suspicion that treasonous activity was going on, and relatively few people were stopped and searched.

If this change in the law goes through, it'll be happening every bloody day. Any prejudiced coppers (and if you don't believe they exist, you're living in cloud- cuckoo land) will have a field day; they'll be able to arrest someone just because they don't like the look of 'em.

For geniune policing, this will be a disaster - for every justifiable arrest, there'll be a hundred spurious he-looked-suspicious-to-me-Sarge cases.

[georgepomone]

Hi,
just something else to show these people up as control freaks. I have been a supporter of the Labour Party in the past but not any more. Margaret Thatchers government was bad enough but even she wouldn't go as far as this. Not putting it in as a Temporary measure but completely changing the law.
What with being spied upon by these cameras in our streets but now even wanting to listen with microphones on lamp posts. They seem to be doing as they like at a whim. At the moment we seem to be spied upon at every turn.
So why change an ancient law?
George.

[BBKing]

So why change an ancient law?

a) Because they can
b) Because Blair is a very, very dangerous man. Seriously.

Watch the tabloids tomorrow - I don't think it's any coincidence that this was in a Murdoch newspaper.

georgepomone - remember Thatcher saying of Blair that the country would be 'safe in his hands'? He's Thatcher's heir, no doubt about it, the same flagrant disregard for the traditions of the country in favour of a brutal, totalitarian future with power restricted to a self-appointed elite.

[RXP]

Magna Carta was a rich barons charter. It had nothing to do with a normal English man. It reigned in the Kings power and devolved it to a larger group of cronies.

The possibility that Reid is gearing up a media propanda war against repealing the Human Rights Act. Section 4 of the Act has been used numerous times by the House of Lords to condemn unconstitutional laws. Since we have no codified Constitution, the HRA is effectively our Bill of Rights. It would be absolutely unbelievable if it were repealed. But all it takes is one more terror attack and the public don't care about our liberty.

[BBKing]

The point about Magna Carta is that it was the first step in a long road to moving power over people's lives from state to individual - it was certainly a baron's charter though, but presumably the ability to read and write was pretty limited then (nobility and church, I should think). Since then we've had the Bill of Rights (which itself has silly bits like allowing Protestants to bear arms which would ironically be against the ECHR's freedom of religion provisions), the US Constitution (also with the occasional oddity in, and plenty of US laws are in direct contravention of ECHR) and the ECHR, each updating the ideas of the previous one, with a general movement in the same direction. The ECHR itself isn't a complete solution to state human rights abuses, since it still allows the state to do a lot of bad governing - that's down to us, the voters, to correct, but it's a good base.

Anyway I was right about having to watch the tabloids this morning:

http://www.septicisle.info/2007/05/s...after-lie.html

[Russ]

Originally Posted by BBKing

b) Because Blair is a very, very dangerous man. Seriously.

As are any frontline politicos.

Originally Posted by BBKing

Watch the tabloids tomorrow - I don't think it's any coincidence that this was in a Murdoch newspaper.

Looks like the Murdoch-owned Sun missed this one.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ B

As are any frontline politicos.

I'd say any frontliners have the potential to be, Bliar's just put that potential into action.

Originally Posted by Russ B

Looks like the Murdoch-owned Sun missed this one.

Um Russ...
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007240153,00.html

Last night pressure mounted on PM-in-waiting Gordon Brown to tear up the Human Rights Act — blamed for the farce of control orders being so lame.

Met Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair confirmed the Human Rights Act was to blame for tying his officers’ hands.

Course I can't see how they get that from the following, but then I still can't see where they get that airsoft guns can be easily converted to fire real bullets, so they don't have a record for investigating what they print:

Originally Posted by Sir Ian Bliar

We enforce the law as it is and we will now do our best to find these people. But the police service would always be interested in a better system than one that is as imperfect as this.

[Russ]

Ah yes, packed away there, my apologies.

The way BB described it, you'd think it would be a bit more prominant on their news page at http://www.thesun.co.uk/section/0,,2,00.html

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ B

Ah yes, packed away there, my apologies.

The way BB described it, you think it would be a bit more prominant on their news page http://www.thesun.co.uk/section/0,,2,00.html

Maybe it was back on Friday when they published the article.

I stopped looking at the heliograph in paper form several years ago when it reached the stage where it's journalism was so bad not even Hagar the Horrible could make it worth the cost.

Out of interest, how does "Watch the tabloids" suggest it's the front page?

[Ramrod]

They just can't resist reverting back to their communist control freak ideology roots....

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Out of interest, how does "Watch the tabloids" suggest it's the front page?

I didn't say it would be the front page - but the way BBking was referring to it you'd expect it to have a little more prominence than several lines down.

[Xaccers]

Well the article is 4 days old, and they've got more important things to report now, like rumours about Murat.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Well the article is 4 days old.

That's true. Maybe BBking just got in a bit late.

[BBKing]

Maybe BBking just got in a bit late.

?