Sunday, October 12, 2008

Freedom reading

Tomorrow, 42 days and the anti-terror bill is to be debated in the House of Lords. Liberty asked 42 writers, including Philip Pullman, Julian Barnes, Monica Ali, Ian Rankin, Alain de Botton, Ali Smith and AL Kennedy for their thoughts. See 42 authors slam 42 days ( Observer) , Huffington Post

You can read all 42 contributions here on the Liberty site.

Meanwhile over at the Telegraph, Shadow Home Secretary, Dominic Grieve says 42 days is unworkable and unnecessary. I wonder if he has signed the Amnesty petition against 42 days yet? It only takes 5 minutes. Pass it on.

Links: Vanessa at Fidra Books, Huffington Post

Labels: , , ,

5 Comments:

Anonymous Cutters Choice said...

Yes, but what about the secret inquests and special coroners measures?

Where is the indignation about these nefarious proposals in the CT Bill 2008?

?

October 12, 2008 3:55 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

Erm...try the lengthy post right below this one. And the one on Monday 6th.

That's two posts on the subject in less than 10 days.

Amber Leaf/Sweet Briar/Cutters Choice - may be you could pick a log in and stick with it?

October 12, 2008 11:54 pm  
Anonymous Vanessa said...

Well said - I think that what you wrote was excellent. It's even prompted us to be political on our for once.

October 13, 2008 10:14 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Australia – 12 days maximum
Ireland – 7 days maximum
France – 6 days maximum
Spain – 5 days maximum
Russia – 5 days maximum
Italy – 4 days maximum
Germany – 2 days maximum
United States – 2 days maximum
New Zealand – 2 days maximum
Canada – 1 day maximum


The government have said that they will not use the Parliament Act to force in the 42 days clause (...we shall see). Even the ex head of Mi5 (Baroness Mannigham-Buller, now in the Lords) is against 42 days.

Whyever do the government want these changes to the Coroners inquest system?

It will just result in Inquests which will not fully satisfy the need for public accountability when, not if, there are deaths, partly or wholly as a result of genuine mistakes or malice or incompetence by secret public agencies of the state.

The relatives of the deceased will still have questions about exactly why their loved ones died, and there will be a suspicion of conspiracy and coverup.
(source)

October 13, 2008 3:53 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

The Lords look at secret inquest clauses on Thursday.

October 14, 2008 8:46 am  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home