The Supreme Court fails to spot Labour’s supreme law

This quote appeared in a BBC report on the Supreme Court’s decision to scotch the Treasury orders that freeze the assets of terror suspects. These orders  were brought in by Gordon Brown when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Lord Hope said: “Even in the face of the threat of international terrorism, the safety of the people is not the supreme law. We must be just as careful to guard against unrestrained encroachments on personal liberty.”

Quite right Lord Hope, but there is a higher law. This can be expressed as -

In the face of the threat of adverse publicity, the desire of a Labour government to please the Daily Mail is the supreme law. We must be prepared to crush all personal liberty in the pursuit of a favourable editorial.

 

More evidence that David Kelly murdered

The news that the government is trying to keeping the David Kelly autopsy report secret for 70 years lends considerable credence to the theory that Kelly was murdered.  Link

Otherwise, why should the report have to be kept hidden. If the government has nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear from publication.

 

UK Labour government gives big boost to voyeurs and paedophiles

In his rush to please our American masters by bring full body scanners into use at UK airports, Gordon Brown is giving a big boost to voyeurs and paedophiles.

Howe long will it be before sniggering parties of security guards will eagerly be watching their screens as passengers go through these machines?

Imagine the excitement as a celebrity turns up at an airport.

It has now emerged that the scanners can store and transmit scanner images, contrary to the lies that were previously peddled.

There will soon be a thriving market in scanner DVDs. How long before images start appearing on TV, just as CCTV and police videos have appeared?

Just think how popular  ‘Celebrity Scanner’  will be. Will Simon Cowell be available to present?

 

Britain’s Stasi and bureaucracy

The Register reports that

Chiefs at GCHQ, the government’s electronic eavesdropping station in Cheltenham, have been told to cut bureaucracy, which it’s feared may hamper the agency’s ability to cope with an increased demand for intelligence and security testing.

“The department has developed a proliferation of strategies, which serves to dilute its priorities and confuse its staff and partners,” a Cabinet Office report said today.

The reports authors spoke to junior staff at GCHQ, who said there were too many middle managers slowing decision-making and contributing to overly complex internal procedures.

I suspect that all Britain’s security organisations are bureaucratic, inefficient and pretty ineffective.

That is not based on any inside knowledge, but on an understanding of organisations.

The best organisations are those that are Type One organisations which are exposed to competitive market forces. They have strong competitors and if they get lazy or stupid they get eaten.

If an organisation cannot be exposed to market forces the next best thing is public scrutiny of its activities. If its managers exercise poor judgement or behave corruptly this becomes known. Let us call this a Type Two organisation

The worse kind of organisation is one that is free of market forces and can conceal its activities from scrutiny. Such an organisation is certain to become sclerotic.

Britain’s security organisations [and to a great extent the police] are such Type Three organisations. That is why they are in such a mess. Cabinet Office reports will not change that. They can never become Type One organisations, but they would certainly benefit from much more external scrutiny.

 

Lord Chief Justice calls for fewer laws.

The Mail reports that 

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, said there is too much legislation framed in too many words creating too many crimes. He cited six major Acts with more than a thousand separate sections and 68 additional schedules which went on to the Statute Book in 2003 alone. Labour has created more than 3,500 crimes since it gained power in 1997, more than 1,200 of them through full-scale primary parliamentary legislation.

Among the laws about which he complained was the 2003 Extradition Act, the legislation being used to send computer hacker Gary McKinnon for trial in the U.S., even though his crimes were committeed in Britain.Lord Judge did not criticise the content of the extradition law, which critics say has been weighted too heavily in favour of fulfilling the ambitions of U.S. authorities to put British citizens on trial in America. But he named it in his list of unnecessary laws.

The Lord Chief Justice mentioned four other Acts from 2003: the Crime (International Cooperation) Act; the Anti-Social Behaviour Act; the Courts Act; the Sexual Offences Act. He continued: ‘Finally, the great daddy of them all, the Criminal Justice Act, has 339 sections and 38 schedules with a total of 1,169 paragraphs.

The Lord Chief Justice is quite right. Labour have been hyperactive in passing new and unnecessary legislation. That’s what happens when legislation is regarded as a public relations tool. Much Labour legislation appears to have been motivated by one or more of the following -

• We must be seen to do something.
• We must avoid a critical editorial in the Mail.
• That is a sad case. We must do something.
• We must do as ACPO/MI5 tell us.

 

£20 charge to see a doctor

The BBC reports that “Patients should be charged £20 to see a GP in a bid to limit demands placed on the health service. The Social Market Foundation said forcing people to pay a fee for an appointment could help the NHS cope in the tight financial times ahead”.

The government and doctors are said to be against the move, though the BBC article does not say who they asked for their group’s opinion.

The present system does not provide the right incentives to patients and doctors. If patients had to pay for their appointments, as they have to in many other countries, they would have an incentive not to waste medical resources. If doctors were paid the £20 fee [or whatever sum] for each appointment they would have an incentive to spend more time working.

It takes almost two weeks to get an appointment to see a doctor at my local health centre. That does provide an acceptable level of care.

Why does it take so long? I suspect it is a combination of irresponsible hypochondriacs making unnecessary appointments and doctors not working enough hours [or not enough doctors being employed].

 

Unforeseen consequences of Labour’s surveillance state

Mr Wick is the chap who passed the details of MP’s expenses to the Daily Telegraph.

The BBC quote him as saying

“Mr Wick added that he felt there was an injustice in how much information the government wanted to have about the public, while they wanted to keep their own affairs secret.”

and

“They want to know everything about us, I think we’re entitled to know about them.”

Readers may also recall some political fuss resulting from video and photographs of the G20 policing.

So, how is the surveillance state working out for you Gordon?

 

Agent provocateurs at G20 demonstration

The Guardian reports that

“An MP who was involved in last month’s G20 protests in London is to call for an investigation into whether the police used agents provocateurs to incite the crowds.

Liberal Democrat Tom Brake says he saw what he believed to be two plain-clothes police officers go through a police cordon after presenting their ID cards.

Brake, who along with hundreds of others was corralled behind police lines near Bank tube station in the City of London on the day of the protests, says he was informed by people in the crowd that the men had been seen to throw bottles at the police and had encouraged others to do the same shortly before they passed through the cordon.”

Nobody who is familiar with the current state of the Met will be surprised at this.

What is surprising is that The Filth believe they can get away with this kind of thing when they are cameras everywhere, and the internet and YouTube to spread the word.

In an earlier incident some agents provocateurs in Canada were unmasked by demonstrators and got to star in their very own YouTube video.

“Three protesters in Montebello, Canada during the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America were accused of being police provocateurs on August 20, 2007, by Dave Coles, president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada. The entire incident was filmed and posted on YouTube before being picked up by mainstream media. The video shows three masked men, one of whom was armed with a large rock, being confronted by peaceful protesters. One of the masked men spoke to police officers, and then all three pretended to breach the police line and were ‘arrested.’ Photographs revealed that their boot-tread matched that of the arresting officers. Although they at first denied that the individuals in question were agents provocateurs, the Sûreté du Québec issued a news release on August 23 admitting that the three protesters were, in fact, police officers.” Wikipedia

 

Brown keeps digging on ID cards

The government is to continue with its plan to introduce ID cards.

This is great news for those who look forward to Labour being resoundingly defeated at the next election, and out of office for the next ten years.

The public is becoming increasingly aware of Labour’s attempt to turn Britain into a police state. Brown’s authoritarian approach is worrying more and more people. I suspect it already worries enough people to cause Labour to lose several key marginal seats.

A sensible government, and one that is short of money, might have hastened to drop the ID card scheme. That would have demonstrated finacial responsibility and some respect for peoples privacy.

That path is not The Way of the Gordon. When he is in an hole the Brown instinct is to keep digging.

Keep shovelling, Gordon. You are all set to get kicked out of office without winning an election and marked as a girning idiot.

 

Bob Quick – a lesson for The Filth

I always thought Bob Quick was a dead man walking after his boys raided the House of Commons office of Tory MP Damian Green. The Tories don’t let stuff like that go. I thought that Bob’s comeuppance would have to wait until after the next election.

However, silly Bob delivered himself into their hands with a security blooper and the Tories got to teach The Filth [a British term for the police] a lesson earlier than expected.

The lesson was that, despite all the new powers a supine Labour Government has given them, they have about as much chance as a boy scout troop against the ruthless Tory establishment.

I suspect that some more lessons will be taught after the next election. Fat Bob had the sense to get out before he was booted out. One or two other senior police officers might also be advised to  consider their career prospects.

 

Useful surveillance

The BBC reports that “New CCTV cars to catch drivers using their mobile phones or being otherwise distracted at the wheel are being piloted by Greater Manchester Police. The small Smart cars, which have a 12ft (3.6m) mast with a camera attached, are parked at junctions to monitor traffic. …Anyone seen driving while distracted – eating at the wheel, playing with the radio or applying make-up for instance – is filmed by the cameras.

Later, a letter is sent to the owner of the car, in many cases along with a fine. Anyone caught using their mobile will be asked to pay £60 and have three points added to their licence. Fines could also be handed out to anyone who is thought to be driving without due care and attention, or similar offences.”

Though I believe we are subject to far too much uncontrolled surveillance in the UK, I have no objection to this process.

Driving whilst using a mobile phone is like driving whilst drunk. In the past people have been able to get away with this dangerous behaviour. I still see a lot of people using their mobile phone whilst at the wheel.

As long as the data which is collected is not used for other purposes and is destroyed after a reasonable period of time, I think Manchester Police are to be applauded for trying to tackle this problem.

There are so many more serious issues with Labour’s surveillance state [such as data retention, that targeting distracted drivers is trivial.

There has also been a lot of unnecessary fuss about Google Street View. Anybody who is getting excited about this are straining at a gnat, and swallowing an elephant.

 

SNP on fags and booze

The SNP is to bring a bill before the Scottish Parliament to eliminate the display of cigarettes in shops and supermarkets.

In the longer term they may bring in legislation that will increase the cost of alcohol and reduce some of the more destructive marketing practices of the drinks industry.

Both measures are more likely to loose than gain votes. Both measures will attract the wrath of some yellow fingered booze soaked journalists.

Both measures are  justified on public health grounds and the SNP are to be applauded for being bold enough to act.

 

Boris Johnson’s crackpot illegal immigrant amnesty

Are you an illegal immigrant? If so, Boris Johnson, the Conservative Mayor of London, has an interesting proposition for you. By being here without permission you are breaking UK law. If you can manage to conceal your crime for five years Boris would like to reward you by giving you UK citizenship.

Boris thinks an amnesty would be ‘morally right’. Most people would see it as morally very wrong. What next Boris, an amnesty for murderers?  If nobody digs the wife’s body out of the flower bed then after ten years you win a free holiday in the Bahamas.

The Government quite righly rejects giving amnestys for illegal immigrants.

“Immigration Minister Phil Woolas said such a scheme would encourage more illegal immigrants.  He said: “What unfortunately would happen is that people traffickers and others would see that as a pull factor to get people to the United Kingdom illegally…”

Both Spain and Italy have given amnesties to illegal immigrants. The result has been to draw more illegal immigrants into both those countries.

There are lots of illegal immigrants in London. Perhaps Mr. Johnson hopes that if he gets them citizenship they will vote for him in the next mayoral election.

More likely is that lots of Londoners will think that Boris is a dangerous idiot and vote against him when they get the chance.

What happened to the Conservative Party minders who are supposed to stop Boris revealing his crackpot tendencies?

 

Labour needs to retire the retirement age

The Labour Government is trying to insist that UK workers have no right to work past the age of 65.  This was always a view that favoured business rather than the voters.

The entire policy has been rendered untenable by the financial crisis.  Many people viewed their houses as their pensions. Now they have fallen in value people need to be given the chance to work longer.

If they are not it will affect economic recovery because people will simply cut their current spending to build up their savings. That is just the action the government wants to avoid if there is to be any chance of economic recovery.

 

Guardian’s guide to Labour’s anti civil liberties laws

The Guardian newspaper has has an excellent website which provides detailed information on all the laws which Labour has passed to reduce our civil liberties.

Each law has its own page which contains an introduction to the law, a list of its main provisions, some background on the law and a note on how it affects our civil liberties. One reason that Labour has been able to get away with passing so many oppressive laws is that there has not been a plain English explanation of what each law does. The Guardian should be applauded for producing this web site.

Counter-Terrorism Act 2008

AIM

To create new powers to gather and share information for counter-terrorism; to make further provision about the detention and questioning of terrorist suspects and the prosecution and punishment of terrorist offences; to impose notification requirements on persons convicted of such offences; and to confer further powers to act against terrorist financing.

MAIN PROVISIONS

• Enables a constable to take fingerprints and DNA samples from individuals subject to control orders, and ensure full use can be made of them in terrorism investigations.
• Enables post-charge questioning of terrorist suspects and the drawing of adverse inferences from a refusal to say something that is later relied on in court.
• Allows for extended sentences for offenders convicted of offences with a “terrorist connection”.
• Enables the police to request monitoring information from convicted terrorists and prevent them from foreign travel.
• Removes the general bar on the use of intercept material in certain specified proceedings.
• Amends the definition of terrorism by inserting a reference to a racial cause.
• Enables the Treasury to direct the financial sector to take action on suspected money laundering or terrorist financing transactions in countries outside of the European Economic Area; and enables people affected by such actions to apply to have the decision reversed.
• Makes it a criminal offence to elicit or attempt to elicit information about a member of the armed forces, the intelligence services or a constable which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism .
• Enables constables to enter – by force if necessary – and search the premises of individuals subject to control orders who are reasonably suspected of having absconded or of failing to grant access.
• Puts the secret service DNA database on a statutory footing and allows the cross-referencing of this database with the national police database.

BACKGROUND

In the 2006 Queen’s Speech, the government pledged that the ongoing fight against terrorism would be “at the heart” of its agenda, with plans to increase the pre-charge detention period, allow intercept evidence to be used in court and reform the control order system believed to be included in the new counter-terrorism bill, expected in 2007.Action on the bill was beset by the government’s failure to achieve cross-party consensus on a range of proposals – dominated by the heated debate over pre-charge detention – and by the time it was published in January 2008, many of the purported provisions had been dropped, including allowing intercept evidence to be used in terrorism cases.

Although a report from a cross-party committee supported the use of intercept evidence in certain cases, the government expressed concern that it could jeopardise the work of the security services. Prime minister Gordon Brown said he still had to overcome “considerable objections” in the intelligence community, who suggested a ban on intercept evidence could damage the fight against terrorism.

Civil rights campaigners had hoped that the use of intercept evidence in terrorist cases would mitigate the need for extending the pre-charge detention period, and for the control orders regime.

The final act did, however, include certain provisions on intercept evidence: an amendment to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) enables the disclosure of intercepted communications in financial restrictions proceedings (ie in challenges to asset-freezing decisions); while another amendment allows disclosure of intercept material to a person appointed as counsel to an inquiry held under the Inquiries Act 2005, if the inquiry panel is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances that make it essential.

The most controversial provision to remain on the bill when it was introduced was a proposal to amend the Terrorism Act 2000 to create a so-called “reserve power” for the home secretary to extend the maximum period of pre-charge detention in custody for individuals suspected of terrorism-related offences from 28 to 42 days. This followed the government’s failed proposal for 90 days in 2005.

Home secretary Jacqui Smith justified the move, saying, “We are facing an unprecedented threat from terrorism” – an argument backed by Home Office security minister, Tony McNulty, who warned that the new laws were needed because Britain could face “two or three 9/11s” in a single day.

The government also had the support of certain senior police officers. Metropolitan police commissioner Sir Ian Blair had told the Commons home affairs select committee: “At some stage 28 days is not going to be sufficient, and the worst time to debate whether an extension is needed would be in the aftermath of an atrocity.”

The Association of Chief Police Officers said it could envisage circumstances in which the 28-day limit might prove inadequate given the increasing complexity and size of the terrorist challenge, while commissioner Bob Quick told a committee of MPs considering the new legislation that 15 terrorist plots had been foiled since the London bombings in July 2005, with he and Blair using this as justification for their call to extend the pre-charge detention period.

The government’s plan sparked large-scale, cross-party opposition – although a YouGov poll suggested the public was overwhelmingly in favour of the plans – and in April, ministers hinted that they would offer a string of concessions in order to stave off a Commons defeat.

In the end, the government won a majority by just nine votes, but was forced to defend itself against accusations that it had “bought” votes from the Democratic Unionist party and Labour rebels to prevent a revolt.

The following day, shadow home secretary Davis Davis resigned as an MP in protest over 42 days, forcing a byelection in his constituency of Haltemprice and Howden, which he went on to win on 11 July.

The bill’s passage through the Lords was just as bumpy. On 5 August, the House of Lords constitution committee criticised the proposed involvement of parliament in the detention of terrorism suspects, stating that it was “institutionally ill-equipped” to do so.

On 13 October, 42 days was thrown out by the Lords, and in what was called “a face-saving gesture”, the government published draft legislation containing the proposal – the counter-terrorism (temporary provisions) bill – which will be held in reserve and introduced in parliament “if necessary”.

The government was also forced to drop provisions allowing so-called “secret inquests” –
an amendment to the Coroners Act 1988 would have allowed the secretary of state to issue a certificate requiring a coroner’s inquest to be held without a jury in, among other things, “the interests of national security”. The proposal was recently reintroduced in the coroners and justice bill, published on January 14 2009.

CRITICISM

Liberty spearheaded the opposition from civil liberties and human rights campaigners with its high-profile Charge or Release campaign, and in the run-up to the bill’s introduction revealed that Britain’s existing 28-day limit is already far longer than that for any comparable democracy. Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti told the Guardian that this “new, damning evidence … makes embarrassing reading for all of us in the land that gave Magna Carta to the world”.

The human rights organisation also took on the government’s professed goal of creating consensus around the pre-charge detention limit, building a coalition against extended detention. In October 2008, 42 writers joined Liberty in opposing the plan. Dissent also came from across the political spectrum: Conservative David Davis said the proposal “risks creating a recruiting sergeant for terrorists”, and Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg said “there is not a shred of evidence that it is necessary”, while just one month before the bill was introduced, it was reported that only a third of Labour MPs backed extending pre-charge detention beyond 28 days.

Director of public prosecutions Sir Ken Macdonald also opposed the plans, telling the Guardian: “I think the basic point is whether you want to legislate on the basis of hypotheticals or whether you want to legislate on the basis of the evidence that we have acquired through practice.” In April 2008, in giving evidence at committee stage, he also said that even if police could not complete their investigations within the present 28-day limit, they did not necessarily need to, because the threshold of evidence needed to bring charges in serious cases has been lowered. This, in certain circumstances, meant that people could be charged on the basis of “reasonable suspicion” that they may be guilty of a crime, rather than the full test of “a realistic prospect of conviction”. This threshold standard, along with post-charge questioning, invalidated the need for extended detention.

Former attorney general Lord Goldsmith, meanwhile, said he would have resigned from office if parliament had approved a 42-day limit on his watch. He told the Guardian: “You shouldn’t keep people in without trial longer than you need to. It’s a basic civil liberty … I find it hard to see how once you’ve got to 28 days and haven’t found enough evidence to charge them, that things are going to change fundamentally.”

Amnesty International was concerned that the power included no effective safeguards against arbitrary detention; that it could lead to other abusive detention practices; and that it undermines the safeguards built into international human rights law to ensure that vital rights are only restricted in genuine public emergencies threatening the life of the nation. It was also argued that the provision would violate European human rights legislation.

In a letter to the Guardian in June 2008, Lord Rea, Sir Geoffrey Bindman and many others said that the bill “should be opposed in its entirety” – yet many of the proposals that they cited remain intact. For instance, they criticised how the bill widened “the net of innocent people who will be incriminated. It creates a new offence of seeking or communicating information about the armed forces which could be useful to terrorism, which we fear will become yet another convenient tool for use against the peace movement.”

Amnesty International stated concerns about post-charge questioning, which was also retained in the final act. Amnesty said: “[T]hese proposals risk undermining the presumption of innocence, the right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination. They also increase the risk of oppressive or coercive questioning.”