Fighting talk from Jacqui

VERY interesting development on the “42 days” issue. The Home Secretary has announced a new counter-terrorism Bill to be introduced “whenever necessary”. And she seems to have accused some on the civil liberties wing of the argument of ignoring the terrorist threat. Excellent.

And a strangely hesitant response from Dominic Grieve, the Shadow Home Secretary, who is taking a long time to claim that this means the government is performing a U-turn on the issue. Time will tell, once the dust settles.

He’s doing his standard “angry indignation” bit in response to being accused of being soft on terrorism. That gimmick gets a bit old and tired after a while. The faces on the benches behind Dominic suggest he might not be in the job much longer.

Two things concern me about Dominic Grieve. First, as a lawyer he seems overly concerned with maintaining the legal profession’s privileges; as his party’s front bench spokesman on the Proceeds of Crime Bill back in 2001, he bent over backwards to try to preserve judges’ discretion when it comes to whether or not to penalise drug dealers financially.

Secondly, and more importantly, am I the only person who thinks he’s a dead ringer for Walter Softie out of Dennis the Menace?

A Speaker's eye view of the Shadow Home Secretary



Filed under Conservative Party, Government, Labour, Parliament

16 responses to “Fighting talk from Jacqui

  1. Laurence

    I heard Walter the Softie was being phased out of the Beano because he’s not pc enough

  2. While you’re on the subject of “ignoring the terrorist threat,” how come MI5 claim to have had no foreknowledge of the 7/7 attacks (as the FBI and CIA also claim about 9/11)?

    Why have the 7/7 survivors and families of the deceased been refused an independent inquiry?

    Why were there major anti-terrorist training excercises by Visor Consultants on behalf of LT on 7/7 at the exact stations at the exact times of the real attacks (again, same as 9/11)?

    Why was the Number 30 bus diverted off its normal route to Tavistock Square where the bomb was detonated?

    What problem does the Government have with a proper inquiry?

    Same reasons that meant Dr David Kelly’s murder had to be covered up in a whitewash?

  3. Laurence

    No thoughts on Walter the Softie then?

  4. M

    The authorities in this country thrive on cover ups.

  5. Wow, that was fast work – Smith’s speech has just been posted on the Labour Party website:

  6. Martin Cullip

    “And she seems to have accused some on the civil liberties wing of the argument of ignoring the terrorist threat. Excellent.”

    Those civil liberties, eh? They just get in the way of good ‘ole Labour proposals. Such an inconvenience. Bleeding Lords, how dare they reinforce democracy!

    As for that Dominic Grieve: ” … he bent over backwards to try to preserve judges’ discretion”

    Good God! What a rotter! The Labour ‘Menace’ should be allowed to do whatever they want without recourse to the courts!

  7. Stewart Knight

    A strange post from a man who whined recently about Sky bias over someone, allegedly, attacking Brown.

    Just when you thought a person deserved more than just a modicum of respect…..

  8. Stewart – I’m sorry if I’ve ever given you or anyone else the impression that this is some sort of objective media outlet. It’s not – I’m a member, supporter and promoter of the Labour Party. Sky News, on the other hand, has a licence obligation to be fair and impartial. I don’t, so vote Labour!

  9. Andrew F

    That gave me a giggle. Talk about moving the goal posts… Wait, you don’t like sport. Let me put this another way:


    I GET TO KEEP* MY CIVIL LIBERTIES AND THERE’S NOTHING YOU CAN BLOODY WELL DO ABOUT IT! No amount of spin, no silver-linings, no gripes about us damn civil liberty fiends will change the fact that you can’t do it. YOU CAN’T GET IT PASSED. We all get to feel just a little more secure in our freedom, thanks to a bunch of unelected farts and some opinion polls! Ah, the sweet irony. Sing it from the rooftops!:


    Now, back to something more productive. And yes: vote Labour – just not on this particular issue.

    *well, some remnants of, anyway.

  10. Maybe there is a resemblance, but David Miliband looks even more like Walter the Softie.

  11. The Sun, which is usually pretty well in tune with its readers’ views, seems unimpressed by this Tory triumph

    George Pascoe-Watson’s ‘My View’ piece is worth a read: “… It’s scandalous that the Tories have put us in this position …”

  12. Internment in 1970s Northern Ireland really worked well, didn’t it?

    So why not introduce 42 days imprisonment without charge? That’ll solve international terrorism at a stroke.

  13. Johnny Norfolk

    Tom Have a look at the BBCs ( hate them) Have your say, if you want to judge the mood of the people over this. Tom all they need to do is come up with a minor charge to hold them. But how would you feel if you were arrested without being told why. Held for over 40 yes 40 days then realeased without knowing what it was about.

    It just shows Labours mindset when you wont even deport those that need to go. Twisted thinking.

  14. Stewart Knight

    Nobody expects you to be impartial, but fair definitely as a public servant. Unless of course you serve the Labour party first and the people second?

    Fair enough then, but can we also now say your blog contains much ‘foaming at the mouth’?


  15. joe bonanno

    to being accused of being soft on terrorism. That gimmick gets a bit old and tired after a while.

    Yes, much like the ‘soft on terrorism’ jibe.

    Is Nulabour not the party who quite contentedly sat back and allowed I*l*m*c terrorists sorry extremists to sit around and scheme in this country in the tacit understanding that they could continue to do so providing they were scheming about mass murder overseas rather than in this country.

    I think it is.

  16. I recognise that their is a terrorist threat, but there is also danger when I walk the streets, drive my car and travel by plane. I do not expect to see such a massive change to our civil liberties to reduce these dangers.

    Civil liberty campaigners do not agree with the Labour policy of state control via the small print and under the guise of terrorist threats. Civil liberty campaigners are entitled to have their opinions considered, not dealt with contemptously by senior cabinet members, not least because many of those that are uniquely concerned with protecting our civil liberties will be more in touch with the public than New Labour. No doubt Jacqui Smith & co will see precisely how the British public feel at the next election. I can’t wait.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s