Coffee House

Cameron’s anti-terror statement sets out autumn battles

1 September 2014

5:07 PM

1 September 2014

5:07 PM

So, after the horsetrading of the past few days, the Conservatives appear to have won their battle to add relocation powers to the terrorism prevention and investigation measures. In his statement in the Commons this afternoon, David Cameron said:

‘We will introduce new powers to add to our existing terrorism prevention and investigation measures, including stronger locational constraints on suspects under TPIMs either through enhanced use of exclusion zones or through relocation powers.’

The Prime Minister also confirmed:

  • Police will gain the power to seize passports at the border temporarily so that they can investigate an individual. This power will include safeguards and oversight arrangements.
  • The government will start preparing legislation that it can introduce in case an ongoing legal challenge to the royal prerogative powers allowing the Home Office to seize passports succeeds. That primary legislation would be introduced immediately if necessary.
  • Ministers will also draft legislation giving the authorities powers to stop British nationals who have travelled abroad to join jihad from returning to the UK. Existing powers do not apply to those who are solely British nationals. Cameron slapped down suggestions from Boris Johnson and others that the government should criminalise travel to certain countries. But he said a ‘targeted discretionary power to allow us to exclude British nationals’ would redeveloped with agencies and on a cross-party basis.
  • Airlines will have to give the government details of passenger list and comply with security screening demands or their flights will not be able to land.


Ed Miliband was careful to say his party would give its ‘full support’ to the government if its approach was one based on ‘genuine multilateralism’.

But Labour does have a political point to deploy here, because those relocation powers were in the control orders that the Coalition replaced with TPIMs. So the Labour leader was able to say ‘relocation was indeed a central part of control orders and it was a mistake to get rid of them in the first place’. So Ed Miliband may be happy to work with the government on improving anti-terror measures, but he clearly intends to continue with its authoritarian arms race at the same time.

He also asked for more details on the targeted discretionary powers to exclude British nationals attempting to return to the UK, but none were forthcoming. It seems that these measures might be the Is and Ts that need dotting and crossing after the talks between the Coalition parties.

It’s also worth noting that the deadline for emergency motions at Liberal Democrat conference has not yet passed. Chances are that one group or another within the party will table a motion on the relocation powers, although Lib Dem sources are insisting that Nick Clegg has not rolled over on these powers and that they have strong limits. Julian Huppert argues that as exclusion measures are already in law, the Lib Dems do not object to them, but they will to further relocation powers.

And once the details emerge on those targeted discretionary measures barring British nationals from returning to the UK – which Dominic Grieve and Sir Edward Garnier have warned may contravene international law and common law (Grieve told the Chamber that bringing these people to justice rather than barring them was the most important thing, Cameron told Grieve that the most important thing was to address any gaps in the armoury as identified by the intelligence services) – the chances are that there will be a Lib Dem revolt on this policy at autumn conference, too.

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
  • Peter Kelly

    This country’s Government is letting in potential terrorist every time it says yes to asylum seeker, we have 35 of them that was Afghanistan, and that is with out the potential Sleepers we have gained over the years from Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, if these so called country they came from are made safe and so called democratic country’s, it’s time to start sending them back from whence they came, whether they have had children in this country or not, and the problem is we have Illegal trying to get on the Ferry’s in France in Mob form, enough is enough and quite frankly I have had enough of Immigrants and I certainly had enough of British Government treating the country as an Open Door to all attitude, this Government has done nothing to Protect the British people, if anything at all he seem more intent on Immigrants then he is British Subject

  • The Laughing Cavalier

    By all means bring them to justice in the UK but outsource their imprisonment to the nations with the least civilised jails and the hottest or coldest climates.

  • beenzrgud

    If Cameron was remotely interested in protecting the British people from the terrorist threat from IS then he would make sure the only terrorist returning from that part of the world arrived back in a body bag. We’ve spent enough on our defence budget over the years, it’s about time we started using all the hardware we’ve bought.

  • foxoles

    Presumably, correct me if I am wrong, these ‘relocation’ powers mean the more peaceful parts of the country are going to have jihadis transported out to them, to ruin those as well? Terrific. Thanks a bunch.

  • McClane

    There is nothing new here. Article 7 of the 2000 Anti-terrorism Act
    already gives the police, in uniform or otherwise, the power to stop and
    detain travellers in port areas for up to 9 hours without reason.

    have been stopped by Special Branch leaving the UK on the grounds that I
    have rather too many Turkish, Syrian, Jordanian, and Egyptian visa
    stamps in my passport.

    I have been stopped on entering the UK on the grounds that I might be smuggling cheese, or knuckledusters.

    police have enough powers already. If they can’t stop Somalis or
    Afghanis or those with FGM child brides I don’t know why theyre stopping
    me. Or need extra powers,

  • beenzrgud

    As far as I’m concerned all this is simply very ‘light touch” anti terrorism. How about we start manufacturing daisy cutters by the thousand and solve the ‘problem’ whilst it is still thousands of miles from our shores. I really don’t want these savages back in the UK.

  • Mike

    Re Posted –

    Cameron, wake up and smell the coffee, contrary to your assertions,
    Jihadism has EVERYTHING to do with Islam. Didn’t you listen to your own
    man Lord Ahmed the other day, when he clearly said that both the
    Rotherham obscenity and Jihadists are the result of mosques and Islamic
    communities failing to educate these in-bred militants in obeying UK laws and integrating into UK culture.

    If a Muslim can say this, why cant sniveling pieces of s*** like you say
    it ?

    Your pandering to the evil that is threatening the country says it all about where your loyalties lie.

  • Guest


    • Span Ows

      : .

  • dado_trunking

    Snooping, storing emails and phone data when the EU has long given up on that, rendering citizens stateless, questioning human rights legislation, withholding passports, spying on its plebiscite, expanding surveillance Britain rather than an environment that value a community spirit and intergenerational and societal responsibilities — that is what Cameron, May and Grayling will be remembered for actually perpetuating whilst saying the opposite.

    • the viceroy’s gin

      …so speaketh the Levesonista fascist. Sieg heil, herr gauleiter.

      • dado_trunking

        Ah, Mustafa Islamopalestinian has arrived late to the party.
        Sorry, all spikes for heads sold out today.

        • the viceroy’s gin

          …hmmmmm …can any other of you socialist nutters translate this nutter’s gibberish?

  • Newcombe

    You could say that it is these Islamists that are keeping our spooks, plod and politicians in business. Why would they ever stop terrorism, or at least the threat of it when there is so much political gain to be had.

    • Mike

      I guess after the cold war ended the spooks needed another reason for their existence and pay from the tax payer. Islam provides them job security for life for the foreseeable future !

  • Newcombe

    Slowly, but surely, our rights as citizens of a free and democratic country are being eroded away. These laws and many others that were brought under Labour specifically to fight extremism and terrorism should only be permissable under a state of emergency or when we declare war on other nations or entities.

    No war has been declared by our government on anyone and yet citizens’ rights are being withdrawn, suspects imprisoned without being charged etc. Here we are fighting our own citizens – mere shadows whose ideology we do not even dare name.

    And don’t think for a miniute that these powers in the hands of the police will do anybody any good, let alone stop terrorism. No, these laws will be used against ordinary folk, little biddies going about their normal business.

    If anything, Rotherham, Oxford etc. has shown that our police and politicians will never stop real criminals, terrorists or, most of all, Jihadis – they will, at immence cost to this country, deliver us a big fat zero.

    If anyone thinks that our politicians, of any party, are serious about Islamic terror then they are being naive. We are being fooled into believeing that they’re doing something whereas in reality they’re doing their utmost to sell us down the swanny.

    These laws, or any laws passed by these politicians, will not stop the rise of Islamism in this country. Never.

    • the viceroy’s gin

      They will destroy freedom and liberty, however. That is their prime purpose, I fear.

  • Rhoda Klapp8

    Wet wet wet.

  • chouenlai

    I thought Ed Milibands contribution was rich. His party cannot prevent underage prostitution in their heartland where Muslims are concerned. A bloody fine job they would make of protecting Britain from jihadists.

    • Mike

      You got that right !

      Perhaps the ‘working classes’ have finally woken up to the fact that Labour aren’t for the working classes but just use them to get into power. Look at 95% of Labour ministers prior to Cameron making his pact with a bunch of liars and pedos, most Labour ministers were born with a silver spoon in their gobs. At least with the Tories we at least know their privileged back ground not that this makes them any more acceptable.

  • Mike

    Cameron, wake up and smell the coffee, contrary to your assertions, Jihadism has EVERYTHING to do with Islam. Didn’t you listen to your own man Lord Ahmed the other day, when he clearly said that both the Rotherham obscenity and Jihadists are the result of mosques and Islamic communities failing to educate these
    in-bred militants in obeying UK laws and integrating into UK culture.
    If a Muslim can say this, why cant sniveling pieces of s*** like you say
    it ?

    Labour created this problem and you are doing NOTHING to deter it !

  • Blindsideflanker

    I noticed that Paddy Ashdown was dismissive about peoples fears of Islamic terrorism, citing our experiences with the IRA, but ignoring the fundamental difference between the IRA, whose agenda could be understood, and the nihilists joining IS.

    It was also worth noting that Paddy Ashdown didn’t hang around his Northern Ireland but emigrated to SW England, even though he despises the English with a passion.

    • ButcombeMan


      I posted this yesterday, you may not have seen it. Ashdown is regarded as well out of touch. His remarks comparing the IRA threat of the 80s with the difficulty for the Security Service of the potential threat we have now and more significantly, the tools available to do something, will make him a bit of a laughing stock there and a nuisance.

      It just suits his purpose to be seen as a bit of a guru on such matters. Paddy always thought more of himself than was justified. He is after all a LibDem which says a lot about him. The LibDems love him though, I once attended one of his rallies when he was Leader, it was almost religious fervour in worship of Saint Paddy. Terrifying and mad.


      Ashdown is a little out of touch with intelligence work, that, or he
      is just making “elder statesman” type disruptive remarks, the sort he
      and Menzies Campbell are prone to.

      We should not take them too seriously.

      A main thrust of his Observer article is that Britain has been here before, with the IRA in the 80s and 90s and we coped.

      The points he is forgetting, is that during that period, we had almost
      complete coverage of telecommunications traffic, not only in Northern
      Ireland. The IRA were also well penetrated with human informants and we
      had some support from The Republic, Above all the main language was
      English. Even then, there were of course, substantial bombing successes
      for the IRA

      None of these points applies to the current situation and even the “bombs” might be more dangerous.

      Multiple telecomunications methods have degraded coverage, even the concept is under threat, (the Snowden spying episode and the Guardian),

      Andrew Parker the Head of MI5 has said intelligence work is looking for a
      needle in a haystack, indeed it is, but we must first and above all,
      make sure that the haystack is preserved in accessible form.

      if the LibDems cannot see sense, they should abstain and the opposition
      should support the government over adequate telecommunications, data

      This is no time for amateurs,

      Ashdown and Campbell do not have the responsibility of keeping Britain safe.

      The LibDems are unlikely ever to have that responsibillty, which is no doubt why they are so often careless with the concept..

      • Colonel Mustard

        The other aspect is that the IRA did not represent any substantial community in England and had a limited capability to embark on urban warfare, which was not their preferred methodology here anyway.

        The rise of youth gangs in England changes that picture and any disorder here might become more like that seen in Northern Ireland. Terrorist activity might not be limited to isolated bomb attacks but could involve a more widespread disorder in flash points. Once the authorities were forced to escalate their response that would in turn lead to an escalation of the violence and we could see some towns and cities become like Belfast and Londonderry at the height of the troubles. Demonstrations and rioting with armed terrorist groups operating in their shadow. There is no doubts that the roots of sectarianism in England have been well and truly planted.

        There is also the danger of Mumbai and Kenya style ‘rampage’ attacks which if conducted in small towns or even rural locations would be very difficult for the authorities to deal with. The police presence and response capability across wide swathes of England is risible because of the urban focus.

        • Mike

          I’ll say this for America, despite all the issues with gun control at least their citizens have a chance and could take out an armed extremist whilst we in Britain would get slaughtered.

          Thats why Obama & most of the Dems wants to take guns of the streets so the populace cant fight back if it came to the crunch.

          • Colonel Mustard

            Yes, disarming a predominantly law-abiding population when criminals and terrorists will still access arms anyway is something of a folly. The pressure for it was three-fold:-

            1. A general leftist aversion to firearms – “No-one needs a handgun”
            2. An emotive reaction to rampages by nutters with legally held guns
            3. Police agitation because they did not want to have to administer firearms licences and conduct checks, the failures of which had contributed to the rampages

            We are now a long way away from when Dr Watson slipped an unlicensed revolver into his pocket to accompany Holmes. The gang members still tool up though. And the police are more routinely armed than ever before.

            • Mike

              The UK found this out the hard way despite not being a nation of gun toting people as there have been plenty of innocent people killed in the cross fire of armed UK drug dealers.

              When you compare Texas with Illinois with gun ownership and deaths through guns the figures are very enlightening Texas is probably the state that has the largest legal gun ownership in the Union with possibly 2 or more guns per person. In contrast, Illionis has far less guns per person BUT 10 times the deaths through guns.

              That truism about guns dont kill, its people has to be true. Its all the unregistered illegal guns in Chicago that kill far more people than in Teaxs.

              Of course, I would prefer that no one needed to have guns at home however if you’re in a vulnerable neighborhood where there are gangs with guns, I’d rather be armed as well. I suspect that in Texas the fact that the criminal element know everyone virtually has at least one gun at home it deters breakins especially when its legal to take out the SOB.

              • Colonel Mustard

                The anti-gun brigade and leftists are not interested in objective data but only that which promotes and justifies their causes. The removal of the right to self-defence and especially the ownership of weapons for self-defence in the UK is rather a scandalous one with the police implementing practices not empowered by law and making judgements for which they were unaccountable.

                In doing that they abrogated another Peelian principle which is “To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.”

                The relationship now is very much one of the police operating on behalf of the state, taking political instruction and controlling the public rather than independently upholding the rule of law as fellow members of the public. The role of the politicised CPS has further undermined the independence of the Constable’s Discretion and I suspect the PCC role will further de-value it rather than shifting it back to its roots because most of them seem to be politicians with agendas or quangocrats thick as thieves within the old structures.

                Radical reform is needed but as I observed elsewhere is unlikely because modern politicians seem absolutely ignorant of the historic role of the police, the Peelian Principles, the circumspection in which it was formerly held within Parliament and why.

                • Mike

                  An excellent summation that is fully supported in the way that the police and CPS operate. As you say, they are in reality state police no different to Mugabes police in Zimbabwe and are controlled & accountable to the government rather than the public that pays their salaries.

                  They turn victims into criminals by arresting home owners protecting their homes, they politicize demonstrations by arresting the lawful protestors (EDL) whilst turning a blind eye to the UAF or Islamic hate mongers. On illegal squatting by travelers they cherry pick the laws on whether to take any actions or not and on the mass sexual grooming across the country they knowingly and deliberately ignore it.

                  Sadly, I don’t think its really the fault of the majority of plod in the country but just as some Muslims get brain washed to become Jihadists or rapists, the police hierarchy has been brain washed through promotional prospects and pension rights to implement state run political correctness.

        • Blindsideflanker

          Well said, the British state has imported a sectarian insurgency to the heart England, the problems this brings is many fold greater than the threat the IRA posed in NI.

        • ButcombeMan

          Not quite right Colonel. I remember being in pubs in Kilburn when the bucket went round “for the boys”, to play safe, I had to put money in.

          • Colonel Mustard

            Thanks. But to the best of my knowledge they never ‘agitated’ in England or engaged in urban warfare as they did in Northern Ireland?

            I think there is now a potential risk for both here.

            • the viceroy’s gin

              The authorities will likely respond to that with a continued militarization of the police, which will amplify the global problem of their ruptured relationship with the People, which you mention. It’s all very sticky, this business. How to get off this slide? It seems to be a problem everywhere.

            • ButcombeMan

              Well the risk is different,

              It was very tense in the 80s, I was caught in the blast of one of the bombs. I was personally threatened. It was a very difficult time

              Do you not class the IRA mainland bombing campaign as “agitation”or “urban warfare”?

              • Colonel Mustard

                No, I would class “agitation” as riots and demonstrations and “urban warfare” as direct and open assaults on security forces or individuals with small arms and RPGs. I think a bombing campaign is quite different although of course you could have all of it as with Northern Ireland.

        • the viceroy’s gin

          Yes… and I believe the modern term of art here is “flash mobs”. They can communicate as well as the authorities, and form swiftly. What happens when they decide to go violent?

      • Mike

        Of course back then, racial profiling was allowed unlike now.

        Get rid of all this PC s*** and instead of looking for a Jihadist at a Womens Institute meeting in the mistaken belief of fairness, we should be kicking down doors of radical Mosques and dragging out the hate monger clerics !

    • Mike

      There’s a whole heap of difference between the IRA and Islamofacists as the only time IRA bombers got killed was when they messed up.

      Paddy Pantsdown should stick to things he’s better qualified at like having something on the side rather than national security !

  • The Masked Marvel

    Ministers will also draft legislation giving the authorities powers to stop British nationals who have travelled abroad to join jihad from returning to the UK. Existing powers do not apply to those who are solely British nationals. Cameron slapped down suggestions from Boris Johnson and others that the government should criminalise travel to certain countries

    What’s the difference between the former and the latter, apart from semantics? It’s not the country they’re going to: it’s the reason. Declare yourself an enemy of the state and go off to pledge allegiance to something else, and there are surely already laws on the books about this, no? Idiots.

    • alabenn

      There is no need for any more laws, there is plenty of laws that can be used, it is willingness to use them that is missing, this is compounded by a judiciary that interprets them to suit there political progressive leanings

      • The Masked Marvel

        Yes, I’d forgotten about the weak judiciary who are complicit in not meting out justice. But magistrates can do nothing if nobody’s brought to the dock in the first place. We know what has happened. The how is almost beside the point. It’s time to state why it happened, loudly and clearly, until the next election.

      • Mike

        The problem the Islamofascist apologists in LibLabCon have is that although the laws of the land can easily deal with all these Islamic excess’s under existing legislation, it goes against their embracing Sharia law and Islamic teachings.

        By, implementing laws that have been on the statute books for decades it will go counter to their PC ideology and pandering to Islamic inspired criminal acts like Rotherham and Jihadists.

    • Mike

      Nothing new, last August I was ‘interrogated’ by the border agency at Poole Harbour after driving from Spain. Maybe they thought my wife, our dog and I were Jihadists even though I’m almost 70.

      • The Masked Marvel

        Presumably, you were a victim of blanket profiling as part of the window dressing needed to prove the policy isn’t waaaacist.

        • Mike

          Actually I think I was a victim of white christian profiling bu some politically correct jobsworth fascist but I did get an apology from the Borders Agency 2 months later after I lodged an official complaint.

          • The Masked Marvel

            Same thing.

        • Mike

          Got it in one and the PC fascists are so obvious in what the do its pathetic that they think the majority are fooled by their discriminatory actions, buts that’s life under LibLabCon today ! They’re nothing but a bunch of mental retards who claim they represent the majority !

          • The Masked Marvel

            It is fascist, yes. Where was the cri de coeur from the Speccie teenagers about curtailed civil liberties all the while this has been going on?

      • Colonel Mustard

        The sledgehammer applied to crack nuts in the UK is incredibly selective. And when the majority is punished for the sins of the few that majority is never a minority!

  • Graeme S

    Anything less than super strong arm tactics wont work here …. just tell the loved ones of the dead that an ASBO was sufficient …. limp wristed horse trading just wont cut the mustard

  • anyfool

    The more that go the better, the ones that do not get killed will return, we then send them back to Syria or Iraq to face justice for the murders of their citizens, surely the multiculti Labour mob cannot object to equal treatment.
    Plus any who are connected to the deaths of any US citizens will have to be handed over to them for justice.
    no need to panic just carry out British law as it stands, that rubbish about not sending them to face the death penalty, lets have a real referendum on that, that will last as long as the weighing of the votes to overturn it,

    • edlancey

      Hand them to America and Holder and Obama will be Mirandizing them – hand over to the Kurds, who will sort them out.

      • anyfool

        Obama and Holder will be history by the time this plays itself out.
        I would give them to the Kurds by dropping them out of a helicopter, but seriously can you see any of the weaklings currently infesting the upper echelons of power in this country, sending them anywhere but Champneys to ease the stress caused by cutting heads off unbelievers.

      • Mike

        Don’t bet on it !

    • Nicholas I

      Whatever works. But there will still be millions of them left… Still, step by step.

  • Beth Dawson

    Don’t stop them from going. Let them go if they want to but when they try to return you take their passports, round up all their family and wave the whole rotten lot goodbye! We don’t want traitors of any kind in our country!

    • Last Man Standing

      we don’t want them to just lose their passports. That is a smoke screen. We want them to lose their citizenship.

    • Newcombe

      What, stop them from going? Those are their voters don’t forget.

    • zanzamander

      The reason we stop them from going is because we know they’re going to kill and torture innocent people. It is like we’re exporting terrorism, an accusation we often level against other countries like Pakistan.

      We should have a blanket ban on traveling to countries and regions that we know are training camps for Jihadis and extremism and anybody who wants to travel there must first obtain Home Office approval otherwise will be refused entry back.

  • Frank

    Amazing, a British national born here could potentially be banned from entering his / her own country? If this happens, we will finally have beaten North Korea!

    • LadyDingDong

      Don’t be a complete prat. If a North Koream citizen went and joined the army of the South it would be more than their passport they would lose if they returned. Can you children stop posting here? I believe the Beano allows letters.

    • Last Man Standing

      They are not British and never were.

    • PP Linnet Hammer

      But surely they have declared their allegiance to and desire to live in the (so called) Islamic State?

    • The Masked Marvel

      A British national born here….who has declared themselves an enemy of the state. Why did you leave that bit out?

      • the viceroy’s gin

        …it will never happen. This is just Cameroonian posturing.

        • The Masked Marvel

          Sadly, you’re quite right. Yet people who do not harm others are banned. Which is also posturing, come to think of it.

    • itdoesntaddup

      Why is it amazing? Banishment and transportation were long used as punishments in this country.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        …after a proper judicial review process, yes.

        • itdoesntaddup

          The death penalty was still on the statute book for treason until Blair removed it too.

          There are plenty of countries that do not permit dual citizenship and require you to give up your citizenship if you adopt that of another country.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            I don’t agree that dual citizenship is quite the trigger you make out. It’s common.

            But the prime point here is whether citizens will be jacked around by bureaucratic thugs, absent due process. That’s a scary road to head down, imo.