There is no doubt that in many respects the Bill is a belt and braces job. As we pointed out to the Government, the truth is that there are perfectly good laws on the statute book that could be used instead of clause 1 or many other clauses. I must admit that I will probably not lose a huge amount of sleep over that, provided that the legislation that we enact is rational, fair, makes sense and, if I may say to the Home Secretary, does not provide a lawyer’s field day of casuistic arguments whereby every person who is prosecuted under the glorification clause will take the courts up hill and down dale day after day, and eventually be acquitted, probably on the direction of a judge, because it is all completely unintelligible.
Terrorism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Dominic Grieve
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 16 March 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Terrorism Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
443 c1668-9 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-09-24 16:03:25 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_309333
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_309333
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_309333