Wednesday, February 01, 2006

The Lords are at it again

Yup, protecting our freedoms, once more (although, to be churlish, only by one vote. But then, they're old; they don't understand this new-fangled technology).
Plans for new anti-terrorism controls on websites have led to a government defeat in the Lords - by just one vote.

The original plans would have allowed a police constable to decide that information on the internet could be related to terrorism.

But peers changed the Terrorism Bill to ensure police have to ask judges before telling internet providers that web pages should be removed.

I had no idea that half of this stuff was going through; how much more shitting piss crap freedom-curbing legislation is going through our institutions in the name of anti-terrorism?
Ministers have said they will try to overturn this defeat.

They must not be allowed to. Furthermore, they must not be allowed to further emasculate the House of Lords; too many times over the last few months has this unelected House defended our ancient freedoms, and Blair's patience will run out soon.

He will try to destroy the Lords, and we must, in some way, try to prevent that. Firstly, I would urge all of you with "Elect The Lords" buttons on your sites to remove them: any reformation of the Lords now will only be in the image that Toni wishes it. We must give these people our support, to show that some of us appreciate their efforts to save us from the fucking turds that some of us, in our folly (or rampant fucking spasticism) elected for the third time (fucking why? Are you all mad?).


Anonymous said...

Well, I still like my alternative election methods based on audio formats (a long story the explanation of which can be found in this usenet posting:, especially RA (the Real Alternative) - voters fill in a National Lottery ticket at the polling station; those matching five or more numbers are elected to serve in the next parliament. Perhaps this could be a good way of selecting the Lords...

Last May I wrote:
'It's pretty clear why Blair's preferred option for a reformed House of Lords was to have one wholly-appointed, with no elected element to challenge the legitamcy (such as it is) of the House of Commons. There is to be no opposition allowed to the elected dictatorship.

'I wonder what the immediate justification for their doing that would be? Perhaps some terrorist will burn down the Reichst--sorry, Palace of

'Remember, you read it here first!*'

*Here being the newsgroup.

Devil's Kitchen said...

The appointment of cronies (and reduction of the hereditaries) was, as you say, to reduce the legitimacy of the Lords, but also to try to ensure a Labour majority (the legitimacy issue being merely a back-up.

I quite like the Lottery idea, although I still prefer the hereditaries; they are at least brought up to recognise their obligations.


The very model of a modern scientific man

Your humble Devil was thoroughly amused by Neil Ferguson's fall from grace, and is very pleased to have found the time to outline Fergus...