Proceeding contribution from Sally Keeble (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 3 November 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Terrorism Bill.
Terrorism Bill
I want to consider the point about the journalists and the mad trips. If journalists had heard a rumour that something might be going on but there was no substantial suspicion, gained entry to the relevant place, found that training was happening and then left, they would not be caught by the clause because they had left and reported the matter. It would therefore be possible for journalists to act, provided that they did not knowingly enter something that was obviously a terrorist training camp. Is that how the clause would work?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 438 c1017
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Criminal investigation Asylum Companies Directors Liability Incitement International law Nuclear weapons Protest Proscribed organisations Radioactive materials Terrorism Training Trespass Encouragement of terrorism
- Legislation
- Terrorism Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 22:44:39 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_275437
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_275437
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_275437