Data retention question

[Jim Killock]

On 18 Jul 2014, at 17:18, Brian Morrison <bdm at fenrir.org.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 16:57:13 +0100
> Roland Perry wrote:
> 
>>> I have nothing against last minute
>>> amendments per se, but I would prefer that there is a period of calm
>>> to consider them fully rather than amending the Bill in a mad
>>> scramble.  
>> 
>> But every Bill is amended in a "mad scramble", even if it's been in
>> the works for months.
> 
> Why is this? Is it done deliberately to make it difficult to fix
> deliberately bad drafting I wonder?

The emergency is that public debate might break out or civil liberties arguments would gain traction in Parliament


> 
>> 
>> The policy-making and lobbying behind the scramble might well have
>> been going on for years, which is the case for RIPA, Data Retention
>> etc. It's hardly as if the topic has never been discussed the last
>> ten years and people need to start making their minds up in a rush.
> 
> This time 450+ MPs appear to have not noticed that the new legislation
> makes the blanket data retention aspects even worse and hence the ECJ
> objection to its predecessor is quite unchanged. Or did the whips
> blackmail them all by referring to their character notes?

“Paedophiles and terrorists will walk free if you vote this down” is plenty enough threat for most MPs.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/attachments/20140718/e4979be5/attachment.pgp>