Traitor MPs vote for internment

! This post hasn't been updated in over a year. A lot can change in a year including my opinion and the amount of naughty words I use. There's a good chance that there's something in what's written below that someone will find objectionable. That's fine, if I tried to please everybody all of the time then I'd be a Lib Dem (remember them?) and I'm certainly not one of those. The point is, I'm not the kind of person to try and alter history in case I said something in the past that someone can use against me in the future but just remember that the person I was then isn't the person I am now nor the person I'll be in a year's time.

315 traitors assembled in the cradle of democracy to vote for the detention without trial of “terrorist” suspects for a month and a half.

They ignored the fact that it is unconstitutional and illegal and voted to deprive citizens of their constitutional right to freedom from arbitrary detention.

So what does it mean for us “normal” people?  The Terrorism Act has such an unbelievably loose definition of terrorism that most people reading this blog have probably committed an act of terrorism.  And now you can be locked up without charge for a month and a half under laws that were supposed to protect us from terrorists.
So how easy would it be for the British government to inter you for a month and a half?

If Gordon Brown was on fire, would you pour on petrol?  If you say yes, you’re a terrorist.

Are you a member of the CEP?  If I was to ask you, as a national council member, to take part in an email campaign targeting a British government department then not only have I committed an act of terrorism but the CEP could also be declared a proscribed organisation and have its assets frozen.  If you’re a member of the proscribed CEP then you would be a terrorist as well.

Ever considered wearing a t-shirt with a picture of Osama Bin Laden on it?  Best not, that would make you a terrorist.

Do you know how to make a bomb using a can of hairspray, a bag of nails and a box of matches?  I do but if I tell you that would make both of us terrorists.  Do you know how to shoot a gun?  I do but I can’t teach you because that would make us both terrorists.  There is a document that has been around on the internet for years called the Terrorists Cookbook.  It tells you how to make home made explosives and the like and was written for a laugh years ago.  I can’t give you a link to it though because that means I’m a terrorist.

Did you know that Prince Charles and Camilla came to Shropshire for a visit today?  It was in the paper yesterday but if I’d mentioned it on my blog yesterday that information could have been useful to a terrorist and that would make me a terrorist.

For any of the above the “criminal” could be locked up for a month and a half without charge.

What is quite disgusting about this is not the fact that 315 MPs turned traitor to vote for the Counter Terrorism Act but that the DUP and other MPs were literally and quite blatantly bribed or bullied into voting for it.  The DUP were bribed with the promise of a huge wedge of cash for Northern Ireland and the proceeds of MOD land sales in the province.

Is there any depth to which these illiberal bastards won’t stoop?

Come the revolution, they will be the first against the fucking wall … whoops, there I go committing terrorism again.

Technorati Technorati Tags:


  1. CherryPie (69 comments) says:

    I think it’s disgusting just another nail in the coffin!

    But I shouldn’t be commenting here because that makes me a terrorist too doesn’t it!!!

  2. KeithS (80 comments) says:

    I don’t think he’ll be able to bribe the Lords though.
    Looks like this one could run and run for a long time, maybe longer than Broon himself.

  3. karl (40 comments) says:

    Ah, the big book of mischief..heh..I recall it well.

  4. Sarah (21 comments) says:

    Unfortunately Wonko your own party’s candidate voted for the measure.

    Given that UKIP promotes itself as libertarian I would image that this goes against party policy. Could you clarify this?

    What are your views on this? Has your party or its leadership got anything to say about it?

    The views of UKIP members of the British democracy forum seem rather disappointing unconcerned about this vote for loss of liberty and the seeming going against what would I imagine is a big plank of party policy.

    We’re supposed to be concerned about our consitution being damaged by the EU but not about a member of UKIP voting to rip assunder a major plank of it.

  5. George Ashcroft (122 comments) says:

    It seems to me that throughtout much of the discussion about time limits, civil liberty, Habeas Corpus and the Magna Carta, the REAL and most pressing issue – that of fighting terrorism and the protection of innocent life – has been seemingly forgotten. You would think, when reading or listening to some commentators, that the Government was proposing to lock up YOU or I for 42 days without charge.

    It must surely be obvious to all level-headed and reasonable people that it is not the liberty of innocent people going about their daily affairs that the government is seeking to curtail. Rather, it is the liberty of the terrorists that is at stake. It is the issue of deadly terrorism and our response to that evil which is in question.

  6. wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

    Sarah, he’s bang out of order and I’ll tell him so when I get time to compose a letter and he’ll get as much grief off me over it as any other MP would. Being a member of UKIP doesn’t mean I’m going to go easy on him or any other UKIP politician, be they an MEP or a councillor.

    George, no matter what the intention may be now, what passes for terrorism in the Terrorism Act is certainly not what you or I would class as terrorism. You only have to look at how many times the Terrorism Act has been abused since it was passed to see how easy it would be for the British government to use 42 days internment against people who quite obviously aren’t terrorists. Like I said above, a shooting instructer teaching someone to shoot a gun is committing an act of terrorism. The Terrorism Act doesn’t say that it’s ok to teach someone to use a gun if it’s for legitimate purposes, it makes anyone teaching someone to use a gun a terrorist regardless of the circumstances. You might trust this government not to use internment for things that the law says is terrorism but plainly isn’t (I don’t – I don’t think there is anything off limits for Gordon Brown to stay in power) but what about a future government? What if the next Walter Wolfgang gets banged up for a month and a half without charge for shouting nonsense at a government minister?

    The most fundamental issue in this is the fact that Magna Carta is not an Act of Parliament – it is a contract between the Crown and the people – and Parliament has no authority to repeal it. The Crown holds a veto over Parliament through the requirement for Royal Assent to pass a bill into law so Parliament cannot be sovereign, the Crown is. Therefore, any contract between the Crown and the people – especially one that predates Parliament – is outside of Parliament’s remit. I have been having an interesting conversation on an email group about this. There is only one Magna Carta and it forms part of the Common Law of many countries around the world, not as a copy of the original but the original contract itself. If you are saying the the UK Parliament has the authority to amend Magna Carta then not only do those changes have effect in every country which has Magna Carta as part of its Common Law, but every other country has the same right to repeal or amend Magna Carta.

  7. William Gruff (138 comments) says:

    George Ashcroft is either unbelievably naive or unacceptably disingenuous. Anti ‘terrorism’ legislation is daily used for far more than was ostensibly originally intended.

  8. Sarah (21 comments) says:

    I don’t agree with everything UKIP does but from what I see they have many policies I like and I think attempts to label them racist are smear tactics. Their website says they are a libertarian party. I would presume that if that is true they would oppose 42 days as a matter of principle. If that is the case Spink has gone against a basic principle of the party.

    Would you feel he has gone against UKIP policy and what do you think the party should and actually will do about it? I’m curious as to what Kippies actually think about all this.

  9. George Ashcroft (122 comments) says:

    In response to William Gruff, to my mind the answer is clear and straight-forward. If the terrorist threat is of an extraordinary or an isolated nature then such a manifestation may well be INSUFFICIENT to justify taking any kind of significant action that would threaten civil liberties. In which case there would be no need for the 42 days detention without charge. If on the other hand, the threat of terrorism becomes by far the BIGGER danger to freedom and liberty in our country then the time has come to take very firm action which may include an extension of the time limit for detention without charge to 42 days. An extension not only limited to 42 days but perhaps even beyond. I believe we reached that point on 7/7 2005.

  10. wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

    Sarah, I’ve posted something just for you.

  11. Charlie Marks (365 comments) says:

    So George thinks 7/7 justifies giving even more power to the securocrats.

    Even though they failed on 7/7 to prevent a terrorist plot in which four individuals gained access to military grade explosives and carried out their attack at the same time as a security drill was ongoing in the City – a security drill based on “almost precisely” the same scenario… []

    There’s a lot of questions to be answered on 7/7 before we give up rights that have taken hundreds of years of struggle to achieve.

  12. George Ashcroft (122 comments) says:

    “So George thinks 7/7 justifies giving even more power to the securocrats.”


  13. ex bootneck (1 comments) says:

    Has anybody looked at the bill of rights 1689 you will find that this law has
    never been changed or amended as to do so would an act of treason.then ask yourself how many times this act of treason has been committed since 1972 by
    our so called leaders in the house of commons. i have asked a so called anti
    euro mp of the conservative party, who said he would reply as soon as possible i did not get one, but 48 hours later labour mp jack straw said he would like to amend the bill of rights, is there something going on at the houses of traitors that they want us to know ithink so and so does a chap
    called albert gurgess. google his name he has info you might like to know.
    as for 7/7 guys look up mark honigsbaum interview at the hilton hotel very intresting tiles flying up from floor

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.