Bartlett's Bizarre Bazaar
Comment, Comics and the Contrary. Contact: aj_bartlett1977*at*yahoo*dot*co*dot*ukThursday, February 24, 2005
An open letter to Charles Clarke
Andrew Bartlett
XX Xxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx
XXXXXXX
XXX XXX
24th February 2005
Charles Clarke MP
The Labour Centre
59 Bethel Street
NORWICH
NR21NL
Dear Mr Clarke,
You are reported by the press as justifying the new anti-terror legislation, which includes provision for house arrest and lesser categories of ‘control orders’ by saying: “I cite only the most recent example in Europe. The Madrid atrocity took place in the Spanish general election campaign. Maybe such things can be possibilities here too. In those circumstances, it’s necessary to be able to take what steps are necessary to stop that happening.”
Citing the example of Madrid raises several important questions. Are you implying that it was the case that the Spanish authorities could have prevented the train bombings of 11th March 2004 had the ability to impose control orders been available? If so, are you implying that the Spanish authorities were wilfully lying when their early statements placed the blame on ETA? Or, if this is not the case, are you implying that control orders will be imposed on a widespread basis on the justification of the low standard of evidence and intelligence that would have allowed the Spanish authorities to ‘control’ not only the ETA suspects that were honestly, if mistakenly fingered, presumably on the basis of poor intelligence, but also the Islamist terrorists, who they claimed not to immediately suspect, but who later emerged as being responsible? If the latter is the case, how many people do you envisage ‘controlling’ in Britain? I ask because, if we are to take Madrid as our case exemplar, as you suggest, I suspect that the net of control orders would have to be cast extraordinarily wide, with significant human rights implications.
Or is it the case that you do not believe that ‘control orders’ would have prevented the Madrid bombings of 3/11/04, and that you have deployed this case as a trump card in the security debate, raising the level of public fear and winning unwarranted support for your proposals? Such a tactic does not belong in democratic debate.
Yours Sincerely,
Andrew Bartlett
I wonder if he will respond any sooner than Michael Howard. I'm still waiting for an answer to this letter.
XX Xxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx
XXXXXXX
XXX XXX
24th February 2005
Charles Clarke MP
The Labour Centre
59 Bethel Street
NORWICH
NR21NL
Dear Mr Clarke,
You are reported by the press as justifying the new anti-terror legislation, which includes provision for house arrest and lesser categories of ‘control orders’ by saying: “I cite only the most recent example in Europe. The Madrid atrocity took place in the Spanish general election campaign. Maybe such things can be possibilities here too. In those circumstances, it’s necessary to be able to take what steps are necessary to stop that happening.”
Citing the example of Madrid raises several important questions. Are you implying that it was the case that the Spanish authorities could have prevented the train bombings of 11th March 2004 had the ability to impose control orders been available? If so, are you implying that the Spanish authorities were wilfully lying when their early statements placed the blame on ETA? Or, if this is not the case, are you implying that control orders will be imposed on a widespread basis on the justification of the low standard of evidence and intelligence that would have allowed the Spanish authorities to ‘control’ not only the ETA suspects that were honestly, if mistakenly fingered, presumably on the basis of poor intelligence, but also the Islamist terrorists, who they claimed not to immediately suspect, but who later emerged as being responsible? If the latter is the case, how many people do you envisage ‘controlling’ in Britain? I ask because, if we are to take Madrid as our case exemplar, as you suggest, I suspect that the net of control orders would have to be cast extraordinarily wide, with significant human rights implications.
Or is it the case that you do not believe that ‘control orders’ would have prevented the Madrid bombings of 3/11/04, and that you have deployed this case as a trump card in the security debate, raising the level of public fear and winning unwarranted support for your proposals? Such a tactic does not belong in democratic debate.
Yours Sincerely,
Andrew Bartlett
I wonder if he will respond any sooner than Michael Howard. I'm still waiting for an answer to this letter.
Comments:
<< Home
Hey Andrew,
I totally agree with you on these control orders-an absolute disgrace designed by politicans trying to scare the living daylights out of us. To be honest I'm highly suspicious of what the Government and Police are up to; when we were fighting the IRA The Establishment went out of its way to reassure the public that it were safe and that all was being done to prevent terrorist attacks. Now we're in a situation when the Home Secretary et al are going round saying how inevitable an attack is going to be. What's more, the powers they are insisting on taking seem to use terrorism as an excuse for a powergrab, after all we fought the most tencious and well organised terrorist organisation in the world in the IRA for thirty years without destroying our ancient liberties (well for the mainland anyway). To be honest, this Government has a nasty authoritian side to it and I for one fear a Government who argues that we should be reduce to little more than serfs because of our "right to life" more than the terrorist bogey man.
Btw, Andrew can't wait to see what you've got in store for Tuesday...MOODSPINS BABY!!!!!!!!
Post a Comment
I totally agree with you on these control orders-an absolute disgrace designed by politicans trying to scare the living daylights out of us. To be honest I'm highly suspicious of what the Government and Police are up to; when we were fighting the IRA The Establishment went out of its way to reassure the public that it were safe and that all was being done to prevent terrorist attacks. Now we're in a situation when the Home Secretary et al are going round saying how inevitable an attack is going to be. What's more, the powers they are insisting on taking seem to use terrorism as an excuse for a powergrab, after all we fought the most tencious and well organised terrorist organisation in the world in the IRA for thirty years without destroying our ancient liberties (well for the mainland anyway). To be honest, this Government has a nasty authoritian side to it and I for one fear a Government who argues that we should be reduce to little more than serfs because of our "right to life" more than the terrorist bogey man.
Btw, Andrew can't wait to see what you've got in store for Tuesday...MOODSPINS BABY!!!!!!!!
# posted by 
: 5:19 pm
: 5:19 pm<< Home
Archives
August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 March 2007
