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... of acts of terrorism... 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)
  