text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Terrorism Bill
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  <p>Those voting Aye failed to block the Government's proposal to remove the Lords amendments to the <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldbills/069/06069.i-iii.html"> Terrorism Bill</a>.  They attempted to do this by proposing a counter-amendment which, had it been passed, would have cancelled the effect of the Government amendment.</p>
  
  <p>The rejected amendment would have restated <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldbills/069/06069.1-5.html#jE002"> Section 1(4)</a>:</p>
  
  <p class="indent">for the purposes of this section, "indirect encouragement" comprises the making of a statement referring to terrorism in such a way that the listener, reader or viewer would infer that he should emulate it.'</p>
  
  <p>and inserted an extra clarification after <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldbills/069/06069.1-5.html#jQ001"> Section 2(8)</a> (page numbering very unclear) which would have said: </p>
  
  <p class="indent>The reference in subsection (8) to something that is capable of being understood as an indirect encouragement to the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences comprises the making of a statement referring to terrorism in such a way that the listener, reader or viewer would infer that he should emulate it.'</p>
  
  <p>In other words, to be busted for this terrorism offence you would have actually had to be encouraging people to do it, not simply make joke about it.</p>
  
  <p>The Lords amendments were rolled back by the vote in <a href="http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2006-03-16&number=196"> Division 196</a>.</p>
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  