Coffee House

May sails through TPIMs statement with disapproving attack on Yvette Cooper

4 November 2013

4:45 PM

4 November 2013

4:45 PM

Aside from having to explain her government’s policy on clothing that might be used as a disguise, Theresa May did pull it out of the bag, again, in that statement on Mohammed Ahmed Mohammed’s TPIM. Her short speech at the start wasn’t anything to write home about, simply setting out the bare bones of what was being done to find the terror suspect. But it was in her response to Yvette Cooper that the Home Secretary really got her eye in.

She took a rather disapproving tone to answer Cooper’s questions, telling her that she was wrong to suggest that TPIMs were in some way a watering down of Labour’s control orders. She said control orders were constantly being eroded by the courts, and that in TPIMs, the government had a regime supported by the courts:

‘Even if we wanted to go back to the days of control orders, we would not be able to do so. The powers available under control orders were being steadily eroded by the courts and the system was becoming unviable. Unlike control orders, TPIMs have been upheld consistently by the courts so we now have a strong and sustainable legal framework to handle terror suspects.’


She went through each of Cooper’s complaints about TPIMs and told her that she was wrong. She also pointed out that while two out of 10 of those on TPIMs have absconded, there were seven similar incidents in six years under Labour’s regime. Whether or not May was right, she made a darn good stab at presenting a polished and strong case. And she closed by attacking Labour as being wrong in its assessment of terrorism powers using the same language that her colleagues use when attacking Labour for being wrong in its predictions on the economy:

‘Wrong about powers, wrong about funding: the right honourable lady should take her responsibilities seriously and support the police and security services in the work that they are doing.’

May wanted to suggest that the Opposition were just playing politics with a serious situation and that their assessment of the situation was wrong, too. It looks as though the Home Secretary will survive yet another Home Office crisis.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • John Smith

    May beasts the weak Cooper all the time. Lets hope the left sees a future Labour leader in HIPs Cooper

  • Wilky1

    Time to ban the Burkha outside the homes of those who wish to wear them – religious affectation – not a requirement!

  • Radford_NG

    As was pointed out here some time ago responsibility for these matters lies with Cameron’s new ant-terrorism task force;known as`Tackling War Against Terror Suspects`…….or more popularly by its acronym.

  • S1L9V8E9R

    how did he remove the tag? apparently a lot of converts go to this mosque.i agree this story has legs.that’s 2 who have gone missing.omnishambles?

  • allymax bruce

    Besides, it’s all Rod Liddle’s fault, for giving the absconder the idea; if Rod, a 7 foot, 300lb, smelly, hunched-over feet-shuffler can walk about London wearing that dress, then what man can refuse to ingratiate himself, without first blaming Rod?
    Just joking, Rod.

  • allymax bruce

    I like Theresa May; I think she’s more of an intelligent, honest, and trustworthy person, than a politician. She dresses well too. Theresa is doing a great job as Home Secretary; thank God it’s her, and not (Duffer), Hague; or, even worse, Eyvette Cooper! As for Cooper’s besmirching? Well, it’s Labour; what do we really expect? The Home Secretary is correct; Eyvette Cooper should be more consumate with National Security issues, instead of playing dirty Labour Party politics for Labour party points scoring!

  • Bonkim

    Whilst a full Burkha can be used as disguise by terrorists and criminals – already many instances of that, the real issue in this particular case is how/why security was compromised as the person involved had a radio tag and supposed to have been tracked all the time.

  • Smithersjones2013

    Does anyone really care? The Home Office was a dysfunctional joke under Labour and its, granted a less high profile, dysfunctional joke under May but it is still a dysfunctional joke.

    There is a point when something has been so bad for so long people stop getting excited about it and just wait for the day it implodes. The clock is ticking.

    At some point there will be an enormous scandal (another one) likely regarding immigration and May’s credibility will be completely destroyed.

    • 2trueblue

      So for 13yrs it was a shambles and you expect it to be fixed in 3yrs.The reality of is that it is very easy to destroy something very quickly and damn difficult to put it right/back together again. That is the real problem is that so much was downgraded/wrecked during that 13yrs and with no funds left I fail to see how it can be restructured in the short space of time. In the commercial world change is difficult to affect, so imagine what any government organisation is like.

      • Wessex Man

        are you Hooky in disguise?

        • 2trueblue

          To pinch a quote of a great tennis player ” you can not be serious”. Definitely not.

  • Paddy

    Oh Isabel, of course she will survive. Labour are just trying to cause trouble again..

    Yvette Cooper would probably invite them round for a cup of tea!

    • Nicholas chuzzlewit

      I suspect that forcing them to have a cup of tea with a ghastly, sententious bore like Yvette Cooper would contravene their human rights.

  • James Strong

    He was wearing a tag.
    What does a tag do?
    I had assumed it gave off a signal by which the wearer could be tracked, located and detained if necessary.
    If it doesn’t do that, what is it for?
    Does anyone know?

    • Normandee

      apparently you can remove it without activating an alarm, which you might think would be an essential design criteria.

      • StateWeShouldBeIn

        While adjusting that fairly major design flaw, we might consider incorporating some other technology- a taser. Should make absconding a bit harder….

      • James Strong

        Thank you.
        You might think that, I might too; but it seems there are people in responsible positions who wouldn’t agree.
        This information, pointing out the absurdity of the design, caused me to ‘lol’ as the youngsters say.
        How on earth does anyone pay for a tag that can be removed like that?
        And how could the designer keep his job?

      • HookesLaw

        My understanding is that if you cut the strap you set of an alarm in the security company’s control room.

        • Normandee

          and yet he’s gone!

          • wycombewanderer

            I suspect the alarm was activated but because it was inside a mosque the powers that be were too cowardly to enter.

    • Russell

      They should contract out ‘tagging’ to Vets. An implant in the neck would do the job cost effectively and be a lot harder to remove.

  • Russell


    Cooper and Labour only can play politics after the shambles they left behind and the mess of every area of government due to their incompetence.

    May rightly pointed out the blatant lies Cooper told on Sky news about a cut to the budget of security forces (truth being it has been increased by tens of millions).

    Labour can’t stop lying, spinning and smearing!

    • HookesLaw

      …yet you want to put them back in power

      • Russell

        It is voters like yourself that will put labour back in power, along with the IQ2’s who refuse to stop voting for a party even when they are rubbish and did nothing to satisfy what the electorate really wanted (labour), and actually that is now both Labour and the Conservative party (the libDems don’t count).
        I have decided after voting Conservative all my life to change to UKIP as the Conservatives do not represent my views on so many things, and UKIP do.
        Even today we had Teresa may defending the wearing of the Burkha!
        Cameron attending a celebration of Hindu! and looking forward to 80million Turks joining the corrupt organisation costing us currently £60billion per year and Tory MEP’s voting in Brussels to increase the budget to cover an overspend by the EU last year!

        • HookesLaw

          Your worked up frezy over conservative policies does not stand up to analysis. I prefer Conservative policies to Labour ones.

          As for the prime ministers wife wearing a sari then you need to go into analyis if that upsets you. Teresa May wore one at an indian woman of the year event. Cheri Blair has worn one (alongside Liz Hurley) Dutchess of York et al. I prefer to see Sam Cameron in a sari than David Bekham in his tattoos.

          Just how how many women wear the burka? Why do you hate them for it? I think May said they could if they wanted. This is the point. It is indeed a tired old fashioned practice and should be allowed to die out and women should not be forced into it or any other subservient practice..

          • Russell

            Your comments are more attuned to a Labour voters response, lies and spin and totally contradictory.
            I was and I am not in a ‘fre(n)zy.
            I do not ‘hate’ the burkha (I got quite used to seeing it during my working life spent in many countries around the world, including India, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Thailand, and many more where the burkha was commonplace).
            I prefer people living in my country to dress as the indigenous people dress, not as potential terrorists or bank robbers hiding their face. (I dressed conservatively in those countries where to do otherwise would have upset the locals).
            It is you that haven’t caught up with peoples feelings in this country.

            • Wessex Man

              I just can’t imagine Nigel Farage’s wife getting herself kitted out in a sari, while Nigel looked on with idiotic grin on his painted face, the Camerons really do belongin the Lib/dums and stop pretending they are anything else!

      • Smithersjones2013

        You were praising their rail policy this morning.

  • MalcolmRedfellow

    There’s a lot not explained yet.

    If Mohammed Ahmed Mohammed was/is “no direct threat”, an awful lot of police and legal time and money has been expended to no national benefit.

    If the sole purpose of all that surveillance was to prevent him from leaving the country, that begs questions about exit border controls.

    This story has still got legs.

    • Andy

      Well the subject of it is still on the run. Perhaps when caught he can, without further ado, be returned whence he came.

      • Russell

        Back to London then!

        He has probably burnt his Somalia passport (if he had any documents when he entered this country either illegally or claiming asylum)

  • Normandee

    No mention of the use of the Burkha again, no mention of whether anyone was detained at the Acton mosque for aiding and abetting, in fact just more political games whilst another terrorist laughs at us