I ultimately just had to wonder where the man got the gall to believe , quite aside from the problems of Government holding powers that the judiciary should hold for objective reasoning, that MPs will have anywhere near enough expertise, knowledge and courage to ever hold the home secretary “to account” when a potential terrorist is being talked about.

It is a sham, a fig leaf, a bribe to make MPs feel better about getting rid of habeas corpus, locking someone up without the opportunity to challenge it.

MPs will not be able to scrutinise or debate the decision to lock up the individual - they will only be able to debate in the broadest sense what the Government claims are the reasons for needing the power (the “exceptional operational need”). Indeed they will not be given any meaningful information with which to debate the need in case it prejudices the outcome of any operation or trial.

Worth reading the Uncorrected Oral Evidence at a recent Home Affairs Committee, particularly the questions from James Clappison and Gary Streeter.

It is a sham, and an affront to our liberties and our intelligence.

Slightly OT, but:

This is the same Martin Salter MP who pushed for the ‘Dangerous Pictures Act’ (otherwise known as the ‘possession of extreme pornographic images’ law. This would make the possession of images portraying sexual violence (i.e. BDSM porn) punishable by up to 3 years in prison and Sex Offender Registration.

“I have received opposition…from groups claiming to represent the bondage, domination and sado-masochistic communities. I have learned that they organise themselves into munch clubs—I do not want to go any further into that…If people want to do weird things to each other they still can, but I say, ‘Don’t put it on the internet’” - Martin Salter MP (TheyWorkForYou)

More on this at my blog: http://questionthat.me.uk/2007/11/vicious-cycle.html

Slightly OT, but:

This is the same Martin Salter MP who pushed for the ‘Dangerous Pictures Act’ (otherwise known as the ‘possession of extreme pornographic images’ law. This would make the possession of images portraying sexual violence (i.e. BDSM porn) punishable by up to 3 years in prison and Sex Offender Registration.

More detail on this at my blog (1)
Frank Fisher on the Dangerous Pictures Act at Comment is Free (2).

“I have received opposition…from groups claiming to represent the bondage, domination and sado-masochistic communities. I have learned that they organise themselves into munch clubs—I do not want to go any further into that…If people want to do weird things to each other they still can, but I say, “Don’t put it on the internet.”" - Martin Salter MP (3)

1. http://questionthat.me.uk/2007/11/vicious-cycle.html
2. http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/frank_fisher/2007/10/all_the_fun_of_the_fear.html
3. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2007-10-08a.111.3

Will there be video of this? I’d really like to have been there, but it is not possible.

Hell, even when it is someone proven to be using taxpayers money in a disgusting way they stand up and applaud him, what hope have suspects of terrorism got?