Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.



Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 250
» Latest member: RubenClore
» Forum threads: 131
» Forum posts: 450

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 13 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 12 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
General Press Cycle
Forum: Press Cycles
Last Post: Tommy Dawson
1 hour ago
» Replies: 17
» Views: 427
PC9 - Shadow Budget
Forum: Press Cycles
Last Post: James McCrimmon
2 hours ago
» Replies: 11
» Views: 136
sxxx videoh d
Forum: New Players & Character Creation
Last Post: Williamoffic
2 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 1
xxx hd nokal
Forum: New Players & Character Creation
Last Post: Williamoffic
2 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 1
thumzila sex videos
Forum: New Players & Character Creation
Last Post: Violetbal
4 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 1
BBC News (Nov 1990 - )
Forum: BBC News
Last Post: Max
5 hours ago
» Replies: 8
» Views: 351
MS3 - HIV-AIDS Response P...
Forum: Ministerial Statements
Last Post: William Croft
7 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 26
Finance Bill 1991
Forum: Division Lobbies
Last Post: Everly
7 hours ago
» Replies: 16
» Views: 215
блондинки бесплатные секс...
Forum: Announcements & Rules
Last Post: mobipornfoto
9 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 4
2017 xxx videi
Forum: Announcements & Rules
Last Post: Austinnen
Yesterday, 06:47 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 1

  MS2 - Iraq 2
Posted by: Dylan Macmillan - 06-27-2020, 05:02 PM - Forum: Ministerial Statements - Replies (3)

Mr Speaker, I beg leave to rise and offer the House the following statement in accordance with my pledge to keep the House fully updated on the matters at hand in what was a delicate situation.

Mr Speaker yesterday at 7:30pm the Foreign Office received word that the Hussein Regime had launched multiple Soviet Scud missiles at a variety of targets, these targets included coalition forces in Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, and other allied Gulf States. Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Forces from multiple nations worked around the clock to try and minimise the damage and death toll from impacts across the region and were successful in removing 7 such missiles via interception before they could hit their targets. Unfortunately Mr Speaker in these situations it is simply not possible to intercept every missile launched and as such 12 missiles hit coalition positions in Saudi Arabia, 2 missiles hit Jerusalem, 8 missiles hit Tel-Aviv, and 4 missiles hit Haifa, the latter three strikes representing the three largest cities in Israel. Mr Speaker it is quite clear that the Hussein Regime intends to strike Israel and provoke a response to break apart our coalition and create a conflict which spans the entire Middle East rather than simply Kuwait and Iraq. We have confirmed reports that 49 civilians in Israel lost their lives last night in these heinous attacks. We have also received reports of 37 coalition dead in Saudi Arabia, although none of these are British personnel, and 23 British personnel wounded. Further to this Mr Speaker at approximately 7:55pm the Foreign Office lost contact with the British Embassy in Tel-Aviv, fortunately that communications blackout was not a result of a missile hitting our embassy but rather of a missile hitting a building next to our embassy and disabling our communications, I would like to thank the US Embassy for being able to confirm this for us after my request to the US Secretary of State. It is clear that the Hussein Regime is determined to flout international law at every turn, targeting less powerful neighbours, civilians, and of course ambassadorial staff with weapons of war. This will not be allowed to stand.

Mr Speaker I am sure now that many in this House will have learned that that is not the end of the story, in the Israeli city of Haifa we have been able to independently verify that the chemical weapon of mass destruction known as VX was deployed, again against a civilian population. VX is an extremely toxic synthetic chemical compound that, because of its low volatility, persists in environments where it is dispersed. Of the 18 casualties reported in Haifa it is believed that 15 are directly the result of this attack, we do not anticipate this number increasing at the present time and Israeli specialists are on the ground overseeing cleanup and an exclusion zone. Mr Speaker I made myself perfectly clear when announcing the operation to evict the Hussein Regime from Kuwait, the use of Chemical or Biological weapons of mass destruction is a red line for this government, a red line we will not back away from. Its use on a civilian target constitutes a war crime, in addition to the multiple other crimes against humanity that the Hussein Regime has committed. These crimes against humanity include, but are not limited to, the persecution of the Feyli Kurds leading to relocation, imprisonments, and mass-executions, the Halabja poison gas attack on an Iraqi-Kurdish town which killed thousands, the Al-Anfal Campaign which has killed thousands to tens of thousands including women, children, and the elderly, and further (although unconfirmed) reports of up to a million Iraqi Kurds being murdered, imprisoned, and relocated to "model villages" which are as awful as they sound. Put simply Mr Speaker the World cannot sit idly by and let this despot remain in power, the blood on his hands would fill several lakes, the skeletons in his closet would fill a hundred graveyards, we must remove him from power before he commits another atrocity along these lines.

Therefore Mr Speaker I have the unenviable duty of updating the House on our mission objectives for the coming ground-based conflict. Our first objective remains the eviction of Iraq from Kuwait, our second objective is the complete destruction of the Hussein Administration's ability to fight through the destruction or surrender of their armed forces including the terrorist organisation known as the Revolutionary Guard, and our final objective is the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the capture of himself and the Dirty Dozen, and their trials for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The precise nature of the battle plan and how it has been amended is of course still top secret but I can confirm to the House that 33 of the 35 nations in the coalition established for the initial mission have agreed to the changes including the overwhelming majority of our regional partners. Only Egypt and Syria are opposed and have signalled their intention to stay out of any operation that would see regime change as one of its tenets they have as a result signalled their intention to withdraw from the coalition.

Mr Speaker regime change without a rebuilding process, and some stability afterwards, would be functionally meaningless. If we were to go in without a plan on what to do afterwards we would create a power-vacuum which would at best see another dictator rise to fill Hussein's shoes. It is for this reason that I am today announcing the Government's intention to follow up our anti-Hussein operation with a much more sustained involvement in the region encompassing fiscal support and rebuilding for the people of Iraq following our military conclusion. The first phase of this plan is to secure for the Iraqi people their primary needs. This will include extensive house building, security provision (whilst we train up local law enforcement and military personnel), food provision, healthcare provision, and the provision of other basic services. This phase shall be an ongoing concern for the international community for the duration of our involvement with Iraq although we anticipate being able to move on to Phase 2 by the end of 1992. The second phase of our rebuilding programme in Iraq will concern political and economic choices, freedoms, and priorities. We will help to establish trade and enterprise in Iraq, rebuild its economy, work with locals to create a system of government and a state constitution in keeping with local preferences and traditions. Mr Speaker this phase shall not be possible until Phase 1 is sufficiently advanced and as such may be moved forwards or delayed depending on the situation on the ground.

Mr Speaker I do not take these decisions likely, as I have said many times no Foreign Secretary relishes the prospect of sending our servicemen to war, but this is the right choice and I stand by it even if some in this House will find themselves unable to.

Print this item

  Myerscough SP: Family, parenting and marriage
Posted by: Aubyn Myerscough - 06-25-2020, 06:06 PM - Forum: Press Office - No Replies

Henry Lockhart, MP for Lewisham East, addresses a conference of the Primrose League on family, parenting and marriage.

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is a great privilege and honour to address the Primrose League. Through high times and dark ones, the Primrose League have been a beacon for true conservatism, the clear and unequivocal articulation of our values, and the fight for the future of our country.

We gather together at a time when the Conservative Party has focused too much over recent months on personalities, and not policy. It is my sincere hope that we shall return back to what is needed to be done to improve our country. For all the progress we have made since 1979, there is still much more that needs to happen

Not least because I speak to you at what, I believe, is a grave moment for our country and our childrens future. We are standing on the precipice over which we could tumble, losing our morals and values as we fall. Our nation has mere moments, a time representing a small fraction of history, before we face a full blown crisis into which we may struggle to recover.

I am talking, of course, about our increasing loss of faith in family and our increasing loss of commitment to marriage. The statistics are clear and they are stark: compared to 1970, the annual marriage rate for men in 1989 was 42% lower, while for women it is nearly 36% lower. In 1989, there were 70,000 fewer marriages compared to 1970. Marriages are also more likely to end in divorce, as the record numbers are giving up on their commitments to each other. Compared to other Western European countries, our divorce rate has stabilised at a very high level. At the same time, we have seen a significant rise in single-parent families since the 1960s, a trend that has rapidly increased in the past decade

There has been a slow and steady decline in marriage and family, as more people believe that neither are worth it or things that can be afforded. Commitments to values and institutions beyond our own individual self have weakened over the past two decades. Our nation is worse off; we are all worse off.

I do not come before you to blame my party for the terrible situation we are in. Fault lies on both sides to share; we should all be shamed by where we are as a nation. Remember this is not a West European problem, this is a British problem. We are at fault. But I have to accept the Conservative governments failure to reverse course and to invest in families and marriage. Indeed, too often we have to pursued policies - particularly economic policies - that have intensified the self, self, self view of the world that underpins much of the decline in marriage and family

And yet the damming evidence of the consequences of failure is clear: children do better when looked after by both parents, and they do really well when their parents are married. Welfare dependency is lower as is crime in communities with higher rates of marriage and strong families. And the cost of family breakdown and poor parenting is enormous, something that taxpayers should not have to bear but that they cannot avoid. The case for acting is strong. There will be many who say that family structure is irrelevant or paternalistic moralising. They are wrong, and they are dangerous. If divorce and unwed childbearing tend to disadvantage children, as the evidence suggests, it does parents and their children a disservice to pretend that family structure is irrelevant

This means our children are disadvantaged. And when our children are disadvantaged, we do something about it. If we are serious about meritocracy and opportunity, as Mrs Thatcher was, then we should be pro-marriage, pro-family and pro-good parenting.

We have to restore our nations belief in family and to marriage. The new Conservative government should take immediate steps now. We do not have to accept declining marriage rates, and to accept increases in single-parent families. I fundamentally dont believe a country of detached, rootless individuals is something the British people want or should accept. We all want the things that marriage and family offer: love, meaning, purpose, hope, security, a future. But theres too much that favours separation and isolation, and too little that favours togetherness, commitment and good parenting. I accept that reversing decades-long trends will be difficult for a government that does not have long before it faces the judgement of the electorate. But there are things it can, and should, do now. A government that favourably looks on marriage and family will, I believe, be rewarded by the electorate.

What should they be?

Firstly, the government should set itself a test: does every policy proposed work for families and work for marriage? Every single domestic policy should support strong and stable families, with marriage at their heart. Impact assessment should be made before policies are announced, with parliament able to see the results. No longer would we be in the situation, as we have been in the past, of government proposing, and parliament supporting policy, that harms family without us all knowing the full facts.

Secondly, the government should start early in making sure everyone grows up ready for commitment and ready to be good parents. Parenting is the most important job any of us can do, yet we do not provide a single hour of mandatory guidance or learning. This means that becoming a parent is a massive shock, one that can reflect badly on a childs outcomes. Thats not to say all parents are and parents because they havent been taught - far from it. But inadequate or harmful parenting, with devastating consequences on child mental wellbeing and health, often stems from ignorance. We have to tackle that

Giving people the tools and knowledge to be good parents should start early - and start at school. This was endorsed in 1977 by the Department of Health and Social Services who saidwe believe as our predecessors did that much more should be done in the school curriculum to ensure that all pupils receive some education in the skills of parenthood.” School is the only place where we can reach almost every child and young personour only chance for universal, mandatory preparation. It should be something every school provides, and the government should ensure that

Of course, preparation at school ideally needs to be reinforced and expanded, once people become parents - and I have more to say on that later. However, by no means all parents attend pregnancy classes or make use of support services. There is no way to guarantee that, after the school years, we can ever reach every parent needing information, help and support. There is role for schools in supporting families in the future; one that we are dangerously ignoring

Thirdly, the tax system should more generously reflect marriage and family. You should not be worse off for marrying and making the most important commitment to another. In fact, I believe you should be better off. We should be proudly making the case for a tax system that rewards marriage, and focus tax cuts on them. Let us declare the end of tax cuts that inadvertently make millionaire singletons better off, while hard-pressed and hard-working families up and down this country see much less of it. While the argument that married couples should keep more of their than single individuals may be difficult to make right now, I do believe we can go further despite that - and beyond the current married couples allowance worth £1720. We should be providing an additional tax allowance, worth up to £1,000 for married families with young children under 11. This will ensure that families are able to keep more of their income before being taxed, something that I think we all support

Fourth, I recognise that even with a more generous set of tax allowances, some families will still feel the pinch and struggle. Not being able to afford the basics of life is likely to encourage family breakdown and stress, which hurts adults and children. We can do more to support those families, especially when one individual is staying at home, forgoing an income, and looking after their child. For example, the government should introduce a Home Care Allowance for families who have a child under 3 years of age which is looked after at home. Young children should be looked after their parents, unless financially that would be devastating. We should be making sure that isnt the case and helping parents afford to stay at home to look after their child

Fifth, and finally, the state should be more prepared to provide supporting services to families as a means of preventing breakdown. I appreciate that there may be some hesitation to intervene in what could be perceived as private matter within families. However, it is not wholly a private matter; not when children are at risk of worse outcomes, poorer lives and lower incomes. The state should not raise a child, but they should be prepared to act to save a child - and that often means stopping family breakdown

We should harness the power and capabilities of the voluntary sector to help our families. By investing in charities who provide services like marriage counselling, relationship skills programmes, and marriage mentoring, we can save money in the long run and improve lives. As well as improving capacity, we should be committed to expanding access. These programmes should not be the preserve of the richest; every marriage and every family should be supported

It is in the interests of our society, it is in the interests of our country, it is in the interest of everyone as individuals that most people live in secure and stable marriages - and that family is supported. As we look at the decline of marriage and family, we must think of the children. It is up to the Conservatives to protect their interests. We must, as conservatives, return to being unabashedly pro-marriage and pro-family. Britain - and its children - really will be better off.

Permission from Max x

Print this item

  David Blair
Posted by: David Blair - 06-24-2020, 09:28 PM - Forum: New Players & Character Creation - Replies (1)

Born on 1 January 1939, David Anthony Lynton Charles Blair is a British Conservative Party politician and the Member of Parliament for Wantage.

David is the eldest son of Sir Anthony Blair, a prominent Foreign Office diplomat who served as British Ambassador to the United States. David was born in New York and spent his early years in the United States, before attending Eton College followed by the University of Cambridge, where he read Law. His younger brother, George, has a career in American politics and is the Governor of New Hampshire.

David served as a criminal barrister after being called to the bar, gaining a reputation as a fierce and effective prosecutor - though he never achieved the same prominence working in defence. He was active in the Conservative Party throughout, serving as a councillor and at one point as a speechwriter for Ted Heath.

David was elected to Parliament in 1983 as the Member of Parliament for the newly created constituency of Wantage. In 1985 he was made a junior minister at the Foreign Office, and in 1989 became Minister for Europe. David was instrumental in persuading Margaret Thatcher to put Britain into the ERM; an ardent pro-European, David has previously called for a “kind of confederation of Europe,” and reportedly considered leaving British politics at one stage to pursue a career in the European Commission.

David is married with three children and is a member of the Church of England.

Print this item

  PC6: Iraq
Posted by: Nathan - 06-23-2020, 08:52 PM - Forum: Marked - Replies (21)

"Is the government taking the correct course of action?"

Closes 27th June 2020, 11:59pm

Bold your tagline.

Print this item

  PC5: Terrorism Bill
Posted by: Nathan - 06-23-2020, 08:51 PM - Forum: Marked - Replies (14)

"Do you support it? And what on earth is going on?"

Closes 27th June 2020, 11:59pm

Bold your taglines.

Print this item

  MS 1 - Iraq
Posted by: Dylan Macmillan - 06-23-2020, 06:48 PM - Forum: Ministerial Statements - Replies (6)

Mr Speaker I beg leave to rise and offer the House the following statement on the goings on regarding the Gulf and broader Middle East concerning the illegal invasion and occupation of Kuwait by Iraq.

Mr Speaker this Government views these actions as absolutely appalling, an affront to international law and diplomatic norms, we will not tolerate them and we are acting with the international community to ensure that they are reversed. Earlier today I was in talks with our Permanent Representative to the United Nations to put the wheels in motion for a resolution of the United Nations Security Council authorising the use of force to liberate Kuwait from Iraq’s illegal occupation if they do not comply by midnight on the first day of January 1991. As I’m sure many in the House are aware Iraq have failed to comply with a binding resolution of the UN Security Council putting them in further breach of International Law and, per the resolution passed last month, liable to endure the use of military force by a coalition of nations including ourselves and our European friends and allies (such as France), the United States of America, and regional partners in the Middle East.

Mr Speaker it is with a heavy heart that I must inform the House of Commons today that our engagement in Kuwait and Iraq has begun via air assault and other ranged bombardments focusing on destroying Iraq’s capability to hold Kuwait and force their withdrawal from the country. I will of course keep the House updated regarding developments in this matter and pray for the protection of Almighty God on our servicemen. No Government relishes the thought of sending our boys into battle but if that is what is required to ensure that our values are upheld, values of freedom and self determination that I’m sure all sides of this House subscribe to, then we must not hesitate to foil the most evil schemes of the most despotic dictators.

Print this item

  Terrorism Act 1990
Posted by: Patricia Carmichael - 06-22-2020, 12:51 PM - Forum: Second & Third Reading - Replies (4)

[Image: PywfbUskra3dQUS_Az0LxkbWn8TtzfNRLFwZfGca...WaOHY_UWBB]
Terrorism Act 1990
An Act to make provision about terrorism; the protection of the general public and the maintenance of order.
 Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—
1.  Terrorism: interpretation
(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where the use or a threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or  the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
(2) An act can be classed as “terrorism” if it involves serious violence against a person or property, endangers a person or persons’ life, other than that of the person committing the offence. An act can also be classed if it creates a serious risk to the health and safety of the public, is designed to interfere with or disrupt an electronic system or involves the use of firearms or explosives to commit an act which is a danger to life.
2. Repeal of Legislation
(1)    The following shall cease to have effect –
(a)    the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989
3. Proscribed Organisations and Terrorist Property
(1) For the purposes of the act an organisation is proscribed if it is listed in Schedule 1 or it operates under the same name as an organisation listed
(2) The Home Secretary may add or remove an organisation from Schedule 1.
(3) The Home Secretary may exercise the power to add an organisation to Schedule 1 if said organisation commits or participates in an act of terrorism, prepare, promote, or encourage terrorism or is otherwise concerned in terrorism.
(4) An application may be made by an organisation to the Home Secretary to remove an organisation from Schedule 1.
(5) The Home Secretary will hear the appeal by the organisation and reserves the right to refuse to remove the organisation from Schedule 1.
(6) In relation to subsection (4) and (5), the Secretary of State’s decision is final.
(7) A person commits an offence if he or she belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation, if he or she invites support for a proscribed organisation or donates,receives or fundraises for money for the organisation as per Schedule 1.
(8) A person commits an offence if he or she arranges, manages or assists a meeting in which they know it will support a proscribed organisation.
(9) A person commits an offence if he or she addresses a meeting to encourage support for a proscribed organisation, attempts to recruit for a proscribed organisation or conducts a private meeting of two or more individuals.
(10) A person guilty of an offence shall be liable on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twenty years, to an unlimited fine or to both.
(11) As per subsection 7, 8 and 9 “proscribed” means proscribed for the purposes of any of the following acts:
(a) this act
(b)the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989;
©the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984;
(d)the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978;
(e)the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976;
(f)the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974;
(g)the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973.
(12) A Police Officer, customs officer or an immigration officer may seize and detain any cash if he or she has any reasonable grounds to do so for suspecting it is intended to be used for the purposes of terrorism or for a proscribed organisation.
(13) As per subsection 12, upon seizure of cash it shall be detained under an order as per Section 4.
4. Monetary Seizure Orders
(1) A Police Officer, customs officer or immigration officer or the commissioners of customs and excise may apply to a magistrates court for an order under this section seized under Section 3, Subsection 12 and 13.
(2) An order shall authorise the further detention of the cash for a period specified in the order, specify a period which ends no later than the end of six months beginning with the date of the order and shall require notice to be given to the person from whom the cash was seized.
(3) An application for an order will be granted if a court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the cash is for the reasons defined in Section 3, subsection 12 of this act.
(4) An application for an order will also be granted if a court is satisfied that the continued detention of cash is justified pending completion of an investigation which will have commenced upon seizure of the cash.
(5) A Police Officer, customs officer or immigration officer or the commissioners of customs and excise may apply to a magistrates court for a forfeiture order for cash being detained.
(6) An application for a forfeiture order will be granted if a court is satisfied that there is  reasonable evidence to conclude that the cash is for the reasons defined in Section 3, subsection 12 of this act following an investigation as referenced in Section 4, subsection 4.
(7) Any cash or funds to which a forfeiture order applies shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
5. Counter Terrorism Powers
(1) A Police officer may arrest without warrant a person which he or she reasonably suspects to be a terrorist.
(2) A person detained shall be released no later than 48 hours after the arrest took place unless charged.
(3) A police officer may apply to a court to extend a person’s detention without charge by a further 72 hours
(4) The person detained must be released without charge or charged and held in custody under this act before the 72 hours have expired as per Section 5 subsection 3.
(5) A court may issue a warrant on application by a police officer to a specified premise if it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect a person has engaged in terrorist activity.
(6) A police officer may stop and search a person or a vehicle without a warrant whom he or she reasonably suspects the person to be a terrorist.
(7) A search of a person must be carried out by someone of the same sex.
(8) Where a police officer proposes to search a person or vehicle he may detain the person or vehicle for such time as is reasonably required to permit the search to be carried out at or nearby the place in which the person or the vehicle was stopped.
(9) A police officer who exercises the power may not require a person to remove any clothing in public except for headgear, footwear, coats, jackets or gloves.  
(10) A police officer may immediately seize and retain anything which he discovers during a search of a person and which he or she reasonably suspects may be classed as evidence the person is a terrorist.
(11) Authorisation to stop and search a person or a vehicle without a warrant as per subsection 6 must be given by a Police officer of the rank of Superintendent or higher.
(12) A person commits an offence if he or she fails to stop a vehicle when required to do so by a police officer, fails to stop when required to do so by a police officer or obstructs a police officer from carrying out a stop and search under this act.
(13) A police officer may use reasonable force if required for the purpose of exercising a power under this act.  
(14) Any item seized by a police officer under this act may be retained for so long as is necessary.
(15) A person guilty of an offence under subsection 12 will be liable on conviction to imprisonment not exceeding six months, a fine up to £10,000 or both.
(16) In the event of an imminent threat to the life of an individual or to the lives of the general public as a result of a terrorist act, a police officer the rank of assistant chief constable or higher, or a senior intelligence official may authorise the use of lethal force on the suspect if necessary to bring the situation under control.
(17) In the event section 5, subsection 16 applies, the Home Secretary must be notified before the order is given or in the event operational priorities take precedence, immediately after.  
6. Weapons
(1) A person commits an offence if he or she provides or receives instruction or training in the making or use of firearms, chemical, biological, nuclear weapons or explosives unless it is done within their capacity of a sanctioned role.
(2) A person commits an offence if he or she collects or makes a record of information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism
(3) A person guilty of an offence under subsection 1 and 2 shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twenty five years or to an unlimited fine or both.
(4) A person commits an offence if he or she is in the possession of a firearm, chemical, biological, nuclear weapon or explosive (unless within their capacity of a sanctioned role) with the intent to cause harm, maim or kill individuals or the general public. 
(5) A person guilty of an offence under subsection 4 shall be liable to life imprisonment, with no parole
7. General
(1) This act extends to the whole of the United Kingdom
(2) This act will take effect the day after Royal Assent
(3) This act may be cited as the Terrorism Act 1990.  

Mr Speaker,

I rise today to present to the House an act which will give our police the powers that are needed to be able to tackle terrorism.

Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 1990 details the interpretation of Terrorism under this act. In short, any action where a threat is used against an individual, the government, the public for any ideological, religious or political cause. Any violent act against a person or property that endangers a person or persons' lives is covered under this section. This act will also cover any attempt to interfer with electornic devices to cause serious harm or a danger to life as well as the use of firearms and explosives.

Section 2 of this act repeals Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, a temporary provision. 

Section 3 of this act outlines Proscribed Organisations and Terrorist Property. Under this act organisations which are proscribed under this act under Schedule 1. If an individual is a member of said organisation , invites support, fundraises or even speaks for that organisation then they will be committing a criminal offence under this act. If they are found guilty of this offence then they will face imprisonment of up to twenty years or face an unlimited fine. They could also face imprisionment and pay the fine. Under Section 3 the Secretary of State can add, remove or amend the list of organisations that are proscribed under this act.

Section 4 of this act outlines the monetary seizure orders. This allows any police, immigration or customs officer to be able to seize money from a suspect under the application of a court order if the money is believed to be funding terrorism. The order will be granted if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the cash is for the use of funding terrorism. A forfeiture order can also be raised and if there are reasonable grounds to believe the money is for terrorism causes following an investigation then the money will be seized and transferred to the consolidated fund. 

Section 5 of this act details counter terrorism powers. Under this act if a police officer suspects an individual of being a terrorist then they can arrest said person without a warrant. The person will be released after 48 hours if not charged however, under this section a police officer may apply to a court to extend the detention by a further 72 hours if the police require more time to interview the suspect. At that point the police must charge an individual before the 72 hours have expired or release the individual without charge. This section also allows the police to search the premises of an individual with a warrant if there are reasonable grounds to suspect an individual has been involved in terrorist activity. Section 5 also allows the police to conduct stop and search operations on an individual or a vehicle without a warrant if there are reasonable grounds to suspect the individual has been engaged in terrorist activity. To conduct this stop and search requires the authorisation of a police officer the rank of superintendent or higher. The police officer can also seize any property which may be classed as evidence if the police officer suspects the individual of a terrorist offence. If an individual refuses to comply with the police, such as refuses to stop a vehicle then they will be charged under the Terrorism Act and face a £10,000 fine, up to six months imprisonment or both. Section 5 also grants the police powers to bring a situation under control if there is an imminent threat to life, whether that is an individual or the general public. A police officer the rank of assistant chief constable or higher, or a senior intelligence official may authorize the use of lethal force if absolutely necessary to mitigate the threat. I will stress to this house that operational decisions will remain under the purview of the police and they should be given the powers that are absolutely necessary to mitigate any imminent threat that the people of this country could face. There have been terrorist incidents on the shores of the United Kingdom in the past and our police must be given the right powers so they can be ready to quickly deal with an imminent threat.

Section 6 of this act details the use of weapons. It is a criminal offence for an individual to give or receive training or instruction in the use of chemical, biological, nuclear weapons as well as explosives and firearms unless it is deemed necessary for their sanctioned role. An example of this Mr Speaker would be the armed forces, where this section would not apply to them. It is also a criminal offence to collect or make use of information likely to be useful to a person who may commit an act of terrorism. If a person is found guilty of either of these offences then they may serve up to twenty five years in prison, an unlimited fine or both. A person is also committing an offence if they are found in possession of a firearm, a chemical, biological or nuclear weapon or explosive with the intent to cause harm, maim or kill individuals or the wider general public. If they are found guilty of said offence, then they will face life imprisonment with no parole. 

Mr Speaker, this government believes this act is just one of the measures that are needed to strengthen our police and to protect the general public. This country has seen devastating terrorist attacks in this country before and this act will allow our police to tackle those threats to protect the British Public. I call on all Members of Parliament to support this legislation. 

Print this item

  Roger Catherwood (CON)
Posted by: Roger Catherwood - 06-22-2020, 08:07 AM - Forum: New Players & Character Creation - Replies (5)

Quote:Name: Roger Thomas Catherwood
Date of birth/age: 29 January 1945 (Age 45 in 1990)
Gender: Male
Ethnicity: White
Sexuality: Heterosexual
Avatar: Lee Kernaghan
Discord username: SuicideBySuicideGirl

Education: BSc, accounting and mathematics
Career: Accountant/financial planner/business partner

Party: Conservative
Constituency: Carshalton and Wallington
Faction: No Turning Back
Parliamentary Career: Backbencher thus far

Roger Thomas Catherwood was born in Mexico City, where his father, a Foreign Office employee, was posted to the British embassy. The senior Catherwood retired from the Foreign Office shortly after Roger’s eighth birthday, by which point the young child had already lived in Mexico, Argentina, and Spain. Upon the family’s return to the UK, Roger grew up primarily in his parents’ hometown of Dumfries. He attended the University of Glasgow, where he received a bachelor’s in accounting and mathematics. Prior to attending university, Roger enlisted in the Officers’ Training Corps, committing to four years of Army service upon graduation. In 1969, he was among the first waves of soldiers sent to Northern Ireland as part of Operation Banner. He was honorably discharged a year later.

Six months after his discharge, Roger went to London, where he met up with a fellow Glasgow alumnus and decided to settle. The two men, along with a third partner, founded Cardinal Financial Services, an accounting and financial planning firm. In the firm’s office, Roger was noted for insisting on an ‘informal’ dress policy, often appearing at work wearing jeans and an Akubra brand hat (which he would remove at clients’ request).

In 1973, Roger married nurse Stella Parks, with whom he settled in her native Carshalton, South London.

Roger became active in Conservative Party functions in university; in South London, he endeared himself to power players in the local Tory establishment by portraying himself as a populist everyman at parties and fundraisers. His quirk at functions – as they had been in the office – involved appearing in jeans and an Akubra. In 1982, he was elected to the Sutton Borough Council, serving for four years; a family tragedy led him to make the decision not to stand for re-election in 1986. However, the following year, after meeting with Tory leaders in the constituency, Roger returned to politics in the 1987 General Election, where he was elected MP for Carshalton and Wallington.

Roger and Stella Catherwood reside in Carshalton with their two daughters, Stella (b. 1976) and Libby (b. 1979). They own two dogs. Roger’s main passions include hiking, visiting the seaside with his family, and playing bass guitar in his band.

Print this item

  Shadow Cabinet of James McCrimmon
Posted by: James McCrimmon - 06-21-2020, 08:38 PM - Forum: Speaker's Office - Replies (1)

Shadow Cabinet of James McCrimmon

Leader of Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition and Leader of the Labour Party The Rt Hon James McCRIMMON QC MP

Deputy Leader of Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, and Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer Mr Tommy DAWSON MP
-- Also shadowing Trade and Industry, Employment, and Social Security
Shadow Home Secretary Mr Ruan PRESTON MP
Shadow Foreign Secretary Mr Gryffydd RHYS MORRISON MP
-- Also shadowing the MoD

Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment Mr Kenneth MCINTYRE MP
-- Also shadowing Transport, Energy, and Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food
Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Science Mr James DAVIES MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Health Mr Robert QUINN MP
Shadow Secretary of State for the Regions Mr Charles TRENYTHON MP

Chief Whip in the House of Commons The Rt Hon Stanley ORME MP (NPC - McCrimmon) 
Shadow Leader of the House of Commons Mr Kenneth MCINTYRE MP
Chief Whip in the House of Lords The Rt Hon Lord GRAHAM of Edmonton PC
Shadow Leader of the House of Lords The Rt Hon Lord CLEDWYN of Penrhos CH PC

Shadow Minister without Portfolio and Chairman of the Labour Party Mr Dennis SKINNER MP
Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury Mr Robin COOK MP
Shadow Minister for Defence Mr Robert LITHERLAND MP
Shadow Minister for Trade and Industry Mr Ronald CAMPBELL MP
Shadow Minister for Employment Mr Eric HEFFER MP
Shadow Minister for Social Security Mr Peter ARCHER QC MP
Shadow Home Minister Mr Paul BOATENG MP
Shadow Foreign Minister Mr Robert HUGHES MP
Shadow Minister for Transport Ms Diane ABBOTT MP
Shadow Minister for Energy Mr Kevin BARRON MP
Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food Mr Gavin STRANG MP
Shadow Minister for Science Mr John PRESCOTT MP
Shadow Minister for Health Mr Michael MEACHER MP
Shadow Minister for Scotland Mr Donald DEWAR MP
Shadow Minister for Wales The Rt Hon Denzil DAVIES MP
Shadow Minister for London Mr Kenneth LIVINGSTONE MP

Print this item

  John Shufflebottom
Posted by: John Shufflebottom - 06-21-2020, 02:00 AM - Forum: New Players & Character Creation - Replies (1)

Name: John Shufflebottom
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Ethnicity: British
Sexuality: Heterosexual
Avatar: https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/...f=1&nofb=1
Discord Username: John Shufflebottom

Education: (Dropped out at 16, Finished A-Levels, College, Uni, Masters?)
Career: John Shufflebottom previously worked as a school teacher in history and law, though he eventually decided to run for the house of commons. He eventually got elected in his constituency after the former MP for Carmarthen retired and John Shufflebottom stood for the Labour Party in the By-Election, which he won.

Party: Labour Party
Constituency: Carmarthen
Faction: Tribune
Parliamentary Career: While he remains a backbencher, he still is somewhat known for showing up to almost all parliamentary gatherings.

Print this item