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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.”

 

Clegg attacks Labour’s Surveillance State

I was glad to see a politician taking the subject of surveillance seriously. Britain has rapidly descended into a police state under Blair and Brown. Instead of protecting our civil liberties Labour and Conservative MPs have acquiesced to a massive extension of state powers.

Brown could only bleat feebly in response to Clegg’s attack.

 

Another step towards Labour’s police state

From the BBC

Provisions in its counter-terrorism bill, published last month, would also allow home secretaries to replace coroners with their own appointees. Ministers insist the new powers would be used sparingly and the vast majority of inquests will still stay public.

But critics say the changes are dangerous and unnecessary meddling with a system that has worked for centuries.

A little-noticed clause in the bill would allow the home secretary to prevent a jury being called to an inquest and even to change the coroner for “reasons of national security”.

Labour wants to give itself the power to conceal deaths by holding secret inquests and avoid awkward questions at inquests by having their own people as coroners. Just remember some recent instances where people have been killed by state officials [e.g. Jean Charles De Menezes]. If this proposal gets through parliament the government will be able to prevent the public discovering what happened.

 

Why Labour wants 42 day detention

So the Government is to try, yet again, to increase the detention without trial period. This is despite –

1. Brown suggesting that he might not be as keen on terrormongering as Blair.

2. Parliament already having rejected the idea.

3. Nobody being able to find any evidence that the increase is necessary.

Do you ever wonder how such bizarre things happen? My theory is that something like the following little play is close to the truth.

The Characters

Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

Jonathan Evans, Director General of MI5

The Play

Gordon has been summoned to the lair of the Dark Lord in Thames House. He stands trembling before his master’s desk.

Evans: Offal [the Dark Lord’s pet name for Brown], I have a task for you.

Gordon: Your whim is my command, Master.

Evans: I wish to increase the occupancy rate in my dungeons. Double the detention without charge period.

Evans: Well, why are you still here?

Gordon: Forgive me Master, but Parliament voted against any more than 28 days. I don’t think they will……

Gordon begins choking and falls to the floor, clutching his throat.

Evans: I don’t want people who think. That’s why I have you. The traitors in Parliament must learn the power of my will. I rule this country, not them. Warn them of the terrible peril of exploding children. If that does not work, give me the names of the traitors and I will deal with them. An exposé in the Daily Mail will soon bring them to their knees.

Gordon struggles to his feet. He has wet himself.

Gordon: Forgive my hesitation Master. My only wish is to serve your will. I will do your bidding.

The Dark Lord’s hand moves and Gordon falls through a trapdoor. After a period of unconsciousness in a cellar he recovers and flees from Thames House. Back in the street he unties Jacqui Smith’s lead from a lamppost and the pair scurry back to Downing Street.

Gordon is elated. He has survived another interview with the Dark Lord. In fact, he thinks the Dark Lord might even be beginning to like him.

 

Another piece of oppresive catch all Labour legislation

The excellent Spy Blog points up yet another piece of oppressive Labour legislation designed to suppress political dissent and civil rights. The intent seems to be to intimidate people so that they are afraid to say or do anything that might affect the will and powers of the state.

As the Spy Blog writes, the opposition parties have been totally useless in fighting against these laws. One of the most depressing features of the post 9/11 world is how legislators in the US and UK have completely rolled over to the powers of the executive. What a useless bunch they are.

 

Livingstone and the Jean Charles de Menezes case

The BBC reports that “London’s Metropolitan police force has been found guilty of endangering the public over the fatal shooting of a man officers mistook for a suicide bomber.” They put seven shots in the head of an innocent man.

As usual the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair is insisting he will cling on to his job. What a fine and honorable man he is.

What most struck me was “Mayor of London Ken Livingstone said the guilty verdict made it more difficult for police to protect the capital against terrorism. ” Thats right, Ken. Londoners would feel a lot safer if police death squads were free to roam the streets.

 

British Transport woodentops abuse terrorism powers

The BBC reports that “Commuters in Glasgow are being stopped and searched at random during an ongoing anti-terrorism operation. British Transport Police said officers were using new powers [Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000] in train stations and the underground network.”

Ch Insp Alex McGuire admitted officers were not responding to any threat. The Act gave them the power to carry out random searches even where there is no suspicion that the person being searched has anything to do with terrorism.
“The Muslim Council of Scotland said the powers end up being used indiscriminately against people that look Asian. Osama Saeed, of the council, said: “This gives the police the power to search people without having any suspicion of wrongdoing. The searching of Asian looking people on an ongoing basis will simply lead to resentment.”

I agree, and it is not only Asian looking people who are going to be resentful. Random searches of innocent citizens humiliate them and invade their privacy. This is the kind of thing that occurs in an occupied territory , or a totalitarian state. It should not be happening in the UK.

The fools in the British Transport Police think they only have to use the word terrorism and it justifies any action. It does not. “

Ch Insp McGuire said the stop and search operation was a “matter of routine”. No its not! Nor should it ever be in this country.

This twerp then went on to say, “We hope that, as well as disrupting and deterring possible terrorist activity, it will also provide visible reassurance to the traveling public that police are being vigilant for their safety.” It does not reassure me. Instead it tells me that, thanks to the totalitarian instincts of the Labour Party, we are well on our way to living in a police state. One that is staffed by officious fools.

The police depend on the cooperation of the public. The more they alienate the public the harder it will become for them to do their jobs. Such actions are also a waste of police resources. The Scottish Police Federation has just reported that “ONLY 7.5% of Scottish police officers are available for front line duties. Scotland currently has more than 16,000 police – the highest ever – but a combination of holiday, rest days, paperwork, training, court duties and sickness means only a maximum of 1,200 are directly serving the public.” If you ever wondered why the police did not have much time for you when you were the victim of crime, here is your answer. Some twerp thought that more glamorous ‘anti-terrorism’ actions would be a better use of resources.

The Economist had it right when they wrote -

“…. down a slippery slope where the state is licensed in the name of the greater good to trample on the hard-won rights of any one and therefore all of its citizens.

Human rights are part of what it means to be civilised. Locking up suspected terrorists—and why not potential murderers, rapists and paedophiles, too?—before they commit crimes would probably make society safer. Dozens of plots may have been foiled and thousands of lives saved as a result of some of the unsavory practices now being employed in the name of fighting terrorism. Dropping such practices in order to preserve freedom may cost many lives. So be it.”

Labour are no longer in power in Scotland. The SNP need to give McGuire, Ronnie Mellis the BTP’s Scottish chief and their London based boss Ian Dennison sharp slaps around the back of their heads and make it clear that Scotland is not a place for the police to abuse the powers those fools in London have given them.

Every time something like this happens the case for breaking off from the fools in London and having an independent Scotland get even stronger.