Blair says don't tour

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

Scott - I know you have some strong opinions on this, but I think here you have a couple of things wrong in fact. I don't think the Government does have the power to ban the tour. I'm prepared to be corrected: what law are you referring to? Secondly, Zimbabwe withdrew from the Commonwealth: it was not expelled. The Commonwealth certainly has the power to suspend or expel member states, and it has done so a few times in the past, but not in the case of Zimbabwe's present absence.

OF

I'm not wrong I'm afraid. This government does indeed have the power to stop England touring, it can do it by advising the ECB that in it's opinion the situation in Zimbabwe is such that it exposes English citizens to an unnacceptable risk in terms of safety for their lives. I'm not wrong about the Commonwealth suspending (expelling was perhaps the wrong choice of word) Zimbabwe either and I quote -

'The decision by the Commonwealth to continue the suspension of Zimbabwe from formal meetings led to an announcement from President Mugabe that his country would leave the group of mainly former British territories completely.'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3300117.stm

and here

'Southern African countries have condemned Zimbabwe's continued suspension from the Commonwealth.'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3304461.stm

Scott

[Occasional Fan]

Scott - no point in arguing the semantics on the Commonwealth point, so let's leave that one. However, as to the UK Government's position on banning the tour, as you say in your own post, they can advise. That's not the same as being able to tell people not to go, and the Government does not have that power over the cricketers any more than it does over me (or you, if you are a passport holding British subject). As British subjects, we can go anywhere we want, subject only to the countries we arrive in being prepared to have us. And I say "three cheers" for that, especially given that I have so many friends here who for years were denied that freedom. All that said, just to be sure about things, I still hope, like you, that England's cricketers will not go to Zimbabwe. But it's their choice and not the UK Government's.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by

However, as to the UK Government's position on banning the tour, as you say in your own post, they can advise. That's not the same as being able to tell people not to go.

Hi O F

Not sure you are right here,the government can advise British people not to travel abroad,and if they were to do so,tour operators such as (Thomas Cook)my source)would heed the governments advice,and refuse to take anyone(in this case Zimbabwe)to such a destination.

Also the government as the power to take your passport away on certain grounds,safety being one reason,

Football fans have had their passports suspended,that is an eg,of the government being able to stop people from travelling abroad.

The England cricket team would be no different than the rest of us,the same terms and conditions would apply.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by ernest

Football fans have had their passports suspended,that is an eg,of the government being able to stop people from travelling abroad.

Isn't that just known football hooligans? People can still go to Zimbabwe, don't British Airways fly there?

[Occasional Fan]

Yes it is. Ernest is right that ultimately the government can take your passport away - the document is government property, and it says so somewhere in the small print. He's also right that a lot of agents would not fly people if the government advised against it. However, there is nothing they can do to stop people going to Zimbabwe (or anywhere else) without a change in the law. If they try to take away anyone's passport on the grounds of safety, I guarantee that the government would wind up being sued - perhaps under the Human Rights Act, but I am doubtful if that would even need to be invoked - and they would lose the day. And, as I have implied above, I would be glad to see the government lose. The decision to travel or not is the decision of the traveller, not that of the government. The case of football "supporters" is covered by specific legislation (can't remember the name of the Act, but any newspaper website would probably reveal it on a search in a few seconds) and is not for the safety of the fans or for any political reason: it is to prevent offenders (under UK law) and potential offenders (under the laws of their targeted host countries) from travelling, and the seizure of passports and prohibtion of travelling requires court action. The government, thankfully, is less powerful that is often thought.

[Occasional Fan]

Oh, heck! Just heard that Sri Lanka won the test match by an innings and 240 runs. It raises another question: would anyone want to travel to see the mismatches which an England tour would inevitably involve?

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Hampshire Guy

Isn't that just known football hooligans? People can still go to Zimbabwe, don't British Airways fly there?

If they can take the passports of known hooligans,there will be emergency powers to take them for reasons of safety,or where such travel would invoke acts of terror.I dont think the government would even go down this rosd.

But the tour opperators could make it almost impossible to travel there,as I have said muddy waters.

[Rich Greenfield]

The law is specific to football fans. BA still fly to Harare as well. If British buisness was pulled out of Zimbabwe then England could pull out of the tour no problem. But as per usual the government is too busy screwing the average zimbabwean for that to happen.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

That's not the same as being able to tell people not to go, and the Government does not have that power over the cricketers any more than it does over me (or you, if you are a passport holding British subject).

OF

Well I'm still clear in my mind that the government can order them not to tour if they want to.

They don't want to because it's expedient for them not to. A good example is the economic sanctions taken against South Africa for Apartheid, another example is the invasion of Iraq specifically against UN instructions. If this government can unlawfully (in the eyes of the UN) invade another country by the use of force, are you seriously suggesting to me that this government could not prevent our Cricketers from touring a country that is run by a despotic dictator?

Of course they can do it if they wanted to, they're just using the 'criminalisation of Cricketers' argument as an excuse - a loophole that conveniently gets them out of their predicament which is absolutely typical of this 'spineless' government. They invade Iraq, unlawfully, they lie to the population to enable them to do it, they commit billions of pounds of taxpayers money to do it, but they won't take action against Mugabe and Zimbabwe because for some reason it suits them not to do so. It all smacks of rank hypocrisy and ineptitute of the highest order. This government and Tony Blair should be bloody ashamed of themselves, but fortunately they won't be in power for much longer.

Scott

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

Oh, heck! Just heard that Sri Lanka won the test match by an innings and 240 runs. It raises another question: would anyone want to travel to see the mismatches which an England tour would inevitably involve?

OF

Of course they don't - its farcical. The other half of the 'spineless' triumvirate the ICC should take immediate action against Zimbabwe by suspending their Test Status, until such a point that they can field a side that can reach the required level to compete in Internationaal Test Match Cricket.

Scott