Advanced search

Cherie warns on civil liberties

(50 Posts)
Caligula Wed 27-Jul-05 12:56:40


Blimey. Bet the atmosphere over supper in the Blair household can get a bit fraught...

WideWebWitch Wed 27-Jul-05 14:16:14

Blimey, surely that's off message? But ha ha at the thought of the atmosphere at dinner!

marthamoo Wed 27-Jul-05 14:20:37

Heehee, I'd like to be a fly on the wall for that conversation!

expatinscotland Wed 27-Jul-05 14:29:23

I'd like to know how often Cherie relies on public transport to get around - with no other alternative b/c taxis are too expensive.

Probably about as much as Gordon Brown has had to rely on tax credits to avoid homelessness.

dillydally Wed 27-Jul-05 14:40:51

My tube this morning was stopped for an age at a station whilst about seven police officers (from a variety of different forces - transport police, city of london police and a random italian lady police officer) searched the train.
After a while, they removed an asian guy from our carriage - he did have a bag - but I would have put money on him being an average joy just making his way to work.
problem is - is this acceptable in this age of heightened security or is it an infringement of his rights (I obviously presume there was no prior intelligence on him).

I think the man on our tube was reported by a fellow passenger - in that case surely the police have to get involved - it is not a random stop and search policy or an infringement of civil liberties?

monkeytrousers Wed 27-Jul-05 19:34:04

What's insensitive about that? Good on her!

Nightynight Wed 27-Jul-05 20:30:39

thank god someone said it anyway.

stupid reaction by the Tories. they seem to think that any criticism of Cherie is acceptable.

Caligula Wed 27-Jul-05 20:54:20

It's precisely at an "insensitive" time that we need people to say the unsayable.

SenoraPostrophe Wed 27-Jul-05 21:03:55

I think Cherie would have made a much better pm than Tony.

monkeytrousers Wed 27-Jul-05 21:11:10

Oh, it's not too late. Think a new age with Hillary and Cherie...

Pity the interns..

Cam Wed 27-Jul-05 21:24:47

insensitive and hypocritical IMO

wordsmith Wed 27-Jul-05 21:27:44

She's a human rights lawyer - what else would you expect her to say?

I agree with her 100%. Hope she has an enormous amount of influence on Tone

Caligula Wed 27-Jul-05 21:35:53

Why Cam?

Insensitive maybe, but insensitivity is an absolutely necessary part of public discourse in a democracy, imo. But hypocritical? Cherie Booth is well know as a human rights lawyer, and this isn't the first time she's spoken out against govt policy even when her DH is PM! Why hypocritical?

Cam Wed 27-Jul-05 21:43:51

hypocritical because she should know that it is impossible for the govt to act effectively in the current climate and preserve the usual normality at the same time.

wordsmith Wed 27-Jul-05 21:44:54

Actually I give a small cheer every time Cherie does say something 'off message'. It just proves she has a mind of her own and is an antidote to those nauseating moments when she grabs Tone round the waists and gazes adoringly into his eyes....

Cam Wed 27-Jul-05 21:48:02

I find Cherie even more nauseating than Tone and that is saying something

snafu Wed 27-Jul-05 21:52:08

<<But Mr Mercer said: "Cherie Blair or Cherie Booth, whichever name she's going under just at the moment...>> Prat. Does the 'homeland security' minister truly think this kind of remark makes him look big and clever?

Good on her.

Caligula Wed 27-Jul-05 22:09:52

Er... presumably Cam, she believes they can continue normality. Unless we want to give in to the terrorists, of course, and change our way of life.

Nightynight Wed 27-Jul-05 22:12:45

I dont find it insensitive. Civil liberties are very important. People have died to establish them.

Cam Wed 27-Jul-05 22:15:46

Don't think having tighter security is giving in to the terrorists

Nightynight Wed 27-Jul-05 22:19:58

Its giving in to terrorists if we have to give up our civil liberties because of them.

Caligula Wed 27-Jul-05 22:21:38

But her speech isn't dealing with having tighter security. The crux of it seems to be the government's adherence to the law. She says "the government, even in times when there is a threat to national security, must act strictly in accordance with the law". She's pointing out (ever so obliquely) that some of the measures taken are not "within the law". I don't really see where the hypocrisy is in that.

Cam Wed 27-Jul-05 22:22:35

Some civil liberties may have to be secondary to civil safety

Nightynight Wed 27-Jul-05 22:23:32

personally Id rather have the liberty Cam.

Nightynight Wed 27-Jul-05 22:24:02

agree Caligula.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: