Is this why the NSPCC are making false allegations?

The NSPCC have been very vocal in making completely false and unsubstantiated allegations that home education could be used as a cover for abuse, presenting themselves as an expert authority on protecting children from harm. They very often refer to the Victoria Climbie case as an example of why monitoring and control by the authorities is needed.

Yet it turns out that the NSPCC were largely responsible for the failure to protect poor Victoria, she was referred to them as an urgent case but they were too busy planning a party to check up on her!! HOW DARE THEY FALSELY ACCUSE PARENTS OF ABUSING CHILDREN when they have been complicit in allowing this child to be abused and killed.

When the whole sorry case came out into the open they even altered documents to try to hide their failure.

The NSPCC should be taken apart and all the self seeking career animals chucked out so that we can once more have an organisation that truly cares more for children than its own status as 'an important organisation advising government'.

READ MORE at:-
http://sometimesitspeaceful.blogspot.com/2009/02/hey-vijay.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1827406.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1382707/NSPCC-accused-of-cover-up-after-Climbie-murder.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1382670/NSPCC-ignored-Victorias-abuse.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Climbi%C3%A9
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/archive/features/nspcc.shtml

Victoria abused by spin AGAIN

This article in The Independent made my blood boil:-

Tens of thousands of home-educating parents are in a fury about a government decision to set up an inquiry into home schooling because of fears it could hide child abuse. They say there is no hard evidence, and the investigation smears them all with suspicion. Two thousand parents and organisations have written to the Government in protest at what pressure group Action for Home Education call "vile and unsubstantiated" allegations.

The inquiry is a "clear incitement to hatred of home educators" says Clare Murton, a supporter of Action for Home Education. Many rank and file home educators agree. According to Katie Bell, 45, a mother of two in Croydon, the Government is almost saying that home-educated children are prone to abuse: "It's an attack on our beliefs. If they said something like that about any other minority they would be lynched."

Vijay Patel, policy adviser for the NSPCC children's charity, also sees the need for a review. "Some people use home education to hide. Look at the Victoria Climbié case. No one asked where she was at school. We have no view about home education, but we do know that to find out about abuse someone has to know about the child."

The website is not accepting comments at present, I assume they are expecting a host of outraged responses. This is what I tried to post:-

Mr Patel, you do yourself no favours when you abuse the memory of Victoria Climbie yet again. This poor child has already had responsibility for Contactpoint foisted upon her (though the Children's Database was in fact conceived several years earlier than her death and she was simply a convenient justification for it) and now her name is dragged into justifying the home education review. Victoria Climbie was NOT home educated and was well known to at least SEVEN different agencies. The Spry children were also known to be at risk from their (presumably local authority vetted) carer before they were withdrawn from school as you are very well aware.

Mr Patel you might have a shred of credibility if you held up your hands and admitted these were failures by the agencies concerned and nothing whatsoever to do with home education. As it is, the NSPCC is clearly just a Govt sock puppet for driving forward an agenda that is hostile to parental responsibilty and families and you clearly don't have any qualms about attacking the way of life and the good name of the families of home educated children on behalf of this so-called "children's" charity. Unfortunately for you, in your attempts to drag us through the mud the only one coming up looking grubby is yourself.

READ MORE at:-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/schools/is-the-government-right-to-be-concerned-about-homeschooling-1631969.html

The Abolition of Freedom Act 2009

Don't take the title literally - this is the title on the outside cover of a fabulous report published by University College London Student Human Rights Programme, led by Jonathan Butterworth.

One of the problems with the erosion of liberty in Britain over the last decade was that the public failed to pay attention to what was happening in Parliament. Laws that fundamentally challenged our traditions of rights and liberty and flew in the face of the Human Rights Act (“HRA”) were passed with relatively little debate. Few grasped the impact they would have on our society and Ministers were able to brush aside protests with assurances that their desire to protect us was equal to their respect for civil liberties.

The difficulty campaigners faced was to press home the argument about the scale of the loss. An account was needed to show that the legislative programme, which swept away centuries old rights and transferred so much power from the individual to the state, actually existed. Now we have that evidence and the Convention on Modern Liberty can demonstrate with confidence what Britain has lost and discuss how this crisis of liberty took root in one of the world’s oldest democracies and what to do about it.

This report by the UCL Student Human Rights Programme (“UCLSHRP”) is a concise and approachable inventory of the loss. It is a profoundly disturbing document, even for those who thought they knew about the subject, for it not only describes the wholesale removal of rights that were apparently protected by the HRA and set down nearly 800 years ago in Magna Carta, it also shows how the unarticulated liberties that we assumed were somehow guaranteed by British culture have been compromised. The same is true of constitutional safeguards that were once considered beyond the reach of a democratically elected legislature.

The attack is as broad as it is deep. Over 25 Acts of Parliament and some 50 individual measures are involved. This document is organised around the articles of the Human Rights Act and also draws on the guarantees of Magna Carta, but it is important to remember that many of the freedoms that are disappearing have never been codified, which makes it all the more difficult to keep track of the attack on liberty. Part of the future work of those associated with the Convention must be to continue to monitor and report on these dangerous trends. Opposition can only begin when we are in full possession of the facts. These are what the UCLSHRP provides in this first exhaustive account of what we have lost.

Download the report at:-
http://www.modernliberty.net/downloads/abolition_of_freedom.pdf

This is why we need to fight ID cards

An extract from Henry Porter's blog:-

"I'm a barrister, one of 15% from a state school background, dedicated to public interest work. In that spirit I volunteered for the United Nations mission in Nepal in 2007. There I met my now husband who had worked for the UN in his own country, Sierra Leone, since 2003 and then in Nepal where he will complete his contract.

"I don't think it is criminal of me to choose a partner who has always worked hard and had to fight hard to even find a job in his own country during and after the civil war but that's how the UK Borders Agency makes me feel.

"We are starting a family together," she continues. "Our life together is beset, at times, by overwhelming strains imposed by the UKBA. It would be easier for me to have started a family with somebody either in prison or with a criminal record than with someone who works for the United Nations but is a Sierra Leoneon national."

In order to get an ID card to her husband my correspondent had to travel to Nepal when she was 34 weeks pregnant so that he could fly to Britain for the birth of their child. The cards states "Sierra Leoneon. No recourse to public funds" and gives an expiry date.

She points out that the expiry date means he is unlikely to be able to find work in Britain. (Who wants to give employment to someone who may have their card withdrawn?)

"There is no denying that there is a stigma attached to an ID card," she continues. "Nearly every flight I have shared with my husband into the UK has resulted in him being stopped by some agency and then being allowed to continue when it's established he's with me. We have to inform the Home Office of any change of address that is likely." She tells me that the immigration officials have taken to boarding planes and stopping people so that they have no recourse.

She concludes: "Of course, probably the only solution for most of our strains and anxieties is to settle elsewhere, where we are not treated like second-class citizens or criminals, But why should I? I work hard in my country – I volunteer for public bodies. I fought hard to gain my professional qualifications then a career."

Indeed, why should she? And why should we tolerate this expensive and divisive scheme?

The best way to fight it is to join NO2ID. In the meantime we can look forward to the government's response to the information tribunal's order to publish the a Whitehall audit which is believed to be critical about the affordability of the scheme which the Home Office still claims to cost £4.7bn.

I keep being told "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear", did this woman's husband have anything to hide? did he commit any crime? yet he is still persecuted and treated like a criminal.

We have to stop this abuse of power and make our government start treating people with respect once more.

READ MORE at:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/feb/23/idcards-civil-liberties

It is time to resist

An article by Henry Porter at The Guardian reads:-

"Once an individual has been assigned a unique index number, it is possible to accurately retrieve data across numerous databases and build a picture of that individual's life that was not authorised in the original consent for data collection," says Sir David Omand in a report for the Institute for Public Policy research.

This is not some wild fantasy. It is the world that we are about to move into and which Jack Straw's coroners and justice bill, the ID Cards Act, RIPA laws and the EBorders scheme have patiently constructed while we have been living in an idiots' paradise of easy money. .......

You may wonder why parliament has not alerted us to these dangers. That is because it is because part of the project, and Labour ministers continue to shelter behind the Human Rights Act, which offers no protection to the British public whatsoever. What we need is entrenched legislation that controls the executive and makes sure that no British citizen will ever be assigned a number so that the state may conveniently watch his or her every move.

Even George Orwell didn't fully foresee the oppressive regime we are falling under, so much for the 'Party of the people'.

From the labour party website:-

Do you feel the same way we do about the kind of Britain you want to live in?

A Britain where the economy is strong and stable; where there is a first-class health service free at the point of use; where education is always a priority ; and where you and your family are treated equally and can feel safe and secure.

This is the Britain we are working hard to build.

Not sure what planet they are living on, it doesn't bear much resemblance to the labour party we have in power at the moment!

READ MORE at:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/feb/25/civil-liberties-surveillance

Freedom of Information - except when the Government want to keep secrets!

I just read the following report in The Times:-

Jack Straw revealed that he was considering a clampdown on freedom of information laws after telling the Commons that he will veto the publication of Iraq war Cabinet minutes.

New restrictions could be placed on the disclosure of the identities of civil servants, the release of Cabinet documents and the publication of advice by officials, it emerged yesterday.

Ministers and officials are considering using the Dacre review to try to introduce new restrictions on releasing information after a huge backlash in Whitehall over the material they are being forced to release by the Information Commissioner and Tribunal.

Seems that the government doesn't like the idea of freedom of information and honesty when it is turned on them! As soon as the people of the United Kingdom start asking questions about how our representatives are running the country and spending OUR money they start blustering and trying to claim exemptions or change the rules to shut us up!

It is about time that this apalling excuse for a government offered us a general election so that we can show them how much we agree with their maladministration, oh of course they know what the result is likely to be don't they - not a chance then I suppose!

READ MORE at:-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5798995.ece

They really can't stand us having privacy

EU's judicial cooperation agency Eurojust will take the lead in finding ways to help police and prosecutors across Europe to wiretap computer-to-computer phone conversations enabled by programs such as Skype.

"We will sit together with all member states to see how this can be done technically and legally," Joannes Thuy, Eurojust spokesman told this website.

One part of me recognises that the police could be justified in being able to carry out surveillance such as wire tapping as part of a criminal investigation, the rest of me sees how these powers are abused on a regular basis to the extent that most of us seem to be under surveillance most of the time.

If the police are investigating a particular person and listen in to the calls made by that person then I don't have a problem. I do have a problem however when they listen in to all calls in the off chance that they may overhear something criminal being discussed. Unfortunately, if they manage to crack skype (and similar) calls, I don't trust them not to listen in as a matter of routine, or for trivial 'offences' such as incorrectly filling in a school application form or dropping a chocolate wrapper.

I can only assume these people went to school!

I was just sat here reading about the report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation which highlights that increasing numbers of families below the poverty line now had 1 or more working parent rather than unemployed as was previously the case and was getting annoyed at the gov'ts ineptitude at throwing loads of money at a problem only to make it worse.

Then I suddenly twigged - these people are stupid! The gov't has a target to eradicate ALL child poverty by 2020 but poverty is defined as any household with children where the parents have an income of less than 60% of British median income. Didn't they do maths in school? Don't they understand that as you increase the income of families the median income increases, thus shifting the 60% target further up, didn't they ever think about this policy before spouting it?

I fondly remember the days of my childhood when a single income was generally sufficient to live comfortably, we didn't have the masses of 'stuff' that we have today but I came from a family of 7 children, only my father worked, we didn't have money for extravagance but had the love and full time attention of our mother and enough money to live in comfort. Now, I work with people who perhaps have a combined gross income of £65,000 and still struggle to make ends meet because of the cost of childcare, mortgage repayments, excessive taxes, general high cost of living.

Reduce the burden of paying for excessive government and we may all end up better off, with people employed in wealth creation instead of snooping on the rest of us. We could have mothers spending time with their children and creating strong family bonds instead of children that grow up as strangers who don't think they have any obligation to get on with the rest of the community, causing the gov't to think that yet more money needs to be spent on dealing with this 'problem of anti social behaviour'.

Another step towards global government?

A worldwide crackdown on tax havens, from Switzerland to the Cayman Islands, will be spearheaded by Gordon Brown as the world's richest nations use the global economic downturn to close loopholes that are costing them hundreds of billions in lost revenues.

As he embarks on a mini-tour of EU capitals in advance of the G20 summit in London in April, the prime minister announced yesterday that he was negotiating with fellow world leaders the terms of a tough regulatory system on tax and banking that will cover every country.

Speaking at his monthly press conference in Downing Street, Brown said: "We want the whole of the world to take action. That will mean action against regulatory and tax havens in parts of the world which have escaped the regulatory attention they need. The changes we make will have to apply to all jurisdictions around the world."

I reckon that this is how they intend to impose a world government on us, one step at a time, with every step seemingly justified to be in our interest.

Much is said of 'New World Order', my experience is that politicians (and many others) like to become part of bigger, more important clubs. When they have achieved membership of parliament they want to become members of a bigger parliament such as Europe, once they have done that they want to join a bigger club like the G8, G20 or go for the big one - 'one world government'. What they fail to see is that they simply become a little fish in a bigger pond but that won't stop them using us to further their ambition.

READ MORE at:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/feb/19/gordon-brown-tax-avoidance-switzerland

Liberty in Britain is facing death by a thousand cuts. We can fight back

Timothy Garton Ash wrote the following piece in The Guardian. I believe he is right to highlight the gradual loss of our freedom, not necessarily by big changes but by lots of little ammendments to legislation hidden with other acts such as the information sharing orders hidden with the coroners and justice bill. There is a saying that "If you put a frog in a pot of boiling water it will jump out but if you put it in cold water and gradually turn the heat on it will boil to death", this is what our government is doing to us - they are not marching in with marshall law and concentration camps but slowly, very slowly they are cutting off our ability to protest, cutting off our freedom to choose our own lives, cutting off our ability to remove them from power.

For 30 years I have been travelling to unfree places, from East Germany to Burma, and writing about them in the belief that I was coming from one of the freest countries in the world. I wanted people in those places to enjoy more of what we had. In the last few years, I have woken up - late in the day, but better late than never - to the way in which individual liberty, privacy and human rights have been sliced away in Britain, like salami, under New Labour governments that profess to find in liberty the central theme of British history.

"Oh, these powers will almost never be used," they say every time. "Ordinary people have nothing to fear. It affects just 0.1%." But a hundred times 0.1% is 10%. The East Germans are now more free than we are, at least in terms of law and administrative practice in such areas as surveillance and data collection. Thirty years ago, they had the Stasi. Today, Britain has such broadly drawn and elastic surveillance laws that Poole borough council could exploit them to spend two weeks spying on a family wrongly accused of lying on a school application form. The official spies reportedly made copious notes on the movements of the mother and her three children, whom they referred to as "targets", and watched the family go home at night to establish where they were sleeping. And this is supposed to be modern Britain?

READ MORE at:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/feb/19/civil-liberties-terrorism

The all-seeing eye of state surveillance

An excellent piece in The Guardian:-

It is not any one cigarette or one extra drink that is ruinous to the health. The damage is done over the years, almost imperceptibly. Grave threats to the health of democracy can also accrue so incrementally that they draw little attention. A committee of peers diagnose one such danger today in a report on the steady creep of surveillance. The charge of hysteria is routinely used to sweep aside such talk when it comes from crusading journalists and pressure groups. The Lords constitutional affairs committee, however, cannot be dismissed the same way. A more dignified band of dignitaries would be hard to imagine - it includes a former attorney general who is a conservative champion of that antiquated role, a Tory expert on the constitution, and a founder of that force of militant moderation that was called the SDP.

Their insistence that mundane data collection "risks undermining the fundamental relationship between the state and the citizen" may be dramatic, but it is rooted in careful argument. Privacy is not only a precondition to a life of any quality, it is part of the meaning of liberty. The rule of law in Britain is not codified in a constitution, but underpinned by shared support for the twin ideals of executive restraint and individual freedom. Under the gaze of 4 million CCTV cameras, and in the face of the burgeoning electronic tabs being kept on citizens, both ideals are strained. Bit by bit the state - and private firms - cease to believe that the courtroom is the place to hold individuals to account, and instead grow used to monitoring them in all sorts of contexts in the name of convenience. Bit by bit, meanwhile, individuals learn to live with the ubiquitous prying eye.

READ MORE at:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/06/leader-surveillance-privacy-liberties

The British are the most spied upon people in the democratic world, but only the judiciary can restrain parliament

Lord Thomas Bingham has written the following in The Guardian:-

In times of heightened tension, caused by war, terrorism or other public emergency, ministers tend to exert their powers to the limits of what they believe to be politically acceptable and legally permissible. They are, very properly, concerned to ensure the survival of the nation and the safety of those within its borders. This is their public duty.

The practical test of political acceptability is the obtaining of parliamentary approval. This is not usually a problem, since public opinion is generally supportive of tough repressive measures in time of crisis. Thus, despite a warning by the joint parliamentary committee on human rights, parliament enacted part 4 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, providing for the indefinite detention without charge or trial of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism, while making no comparable provision for UK nationals similarly suspected. But there are limits, as evidenced by the government's ill-judged and ill-fated attempts to detain terror suspects for 90, and then 42, days without charge - pills that parliament declined to swallow.

The test of legal permissibility falls to be judged, ultimately, by the courts. But in times of crisis the courts too have tended to be uncritical of the executive. During both world wars judgments were given that would never have been given in quiet times, and the first half of the 20th century has been described as a period of judicial catatonia.

But the judges are also heirs of an older and nobler tradition. This is the tradition that led them to develop the remedy of habeas corpus, the most potent safeguard against executive tyranny the world has devised. It led them to develop a range of other remedies to control executive lawlessness, still best known by their old Latin names such as certiorari and mandamus. They are not, as David Blunkett surprisingly thought, "a modern invention ... substantially in being from the early 1980s". It is this tradition in which judges in 1765, for instance, struck down general search warrants issued by the executive.

READ MORE at:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/17/surveillance-civil-liberties

Former MI5 chief accuses ministers of interfering with people’s privacy and playing straight into the hands of terrorists

Dame Stella Rimmington accused ministers of interfering with people’s privacy and playing straight into the hands of terrorists.

“Since I have retired I feel more at liberty to be against certain decisions of the Government, especially the attempt to pass laws which interfere with people’s privacy,” Dame Stella said in an interview with a Spanish newspaper.

“It would be better that the Government recognised that there are risks, rather than frightening people in order to be able to pass laws which restrict civil liberties, precisely one of the objects of terrorism: that we live in fear and under a police state,” she said.

When the former head of Britain's spy agency is expressing concerns about people's privacy then I think we really have come too far!

There have always been criminals and terrorists, we already had perfectly adequate laws to deal with them but the government has forgotten that we have been policed by consent over the years, the police and security services have worked with the community to tackle crime, now the police and security services are working against the community with the assumption that we are all suspects. Well, surprise surprise, when the people are treated as suspects and on opposite sides to the police, they start acting the part and see the police as enemies to be fought rather than allies to support.

Much of the lawlessness and 'anti social behaviour' is directly due to the activities of the state in trying to control us, when people feel disempowered and having to always refer to 'experts' or ask for permission then they stop functioning as a community and stop self policing, result - more crime, less support for the police.

READ MORE at:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/4643415/Spy-chief-We-risk-a-police-state.html
http://nannyknowsbest.blogspot.com/2009/02/well-said-dame-stella.html

Home Office expands scope of compulsory ID cards

The Home Office has made a formal request to parliament to increase the scope of ID cards for foreign nationals.

Under the proposed regulations, which are part of government plans, applicants under six categories for UK immigration will need to provide fingerprints and a photograph to be stored electronically on the card, the Home Office said on Thursday.

Until now, only students and foreign nationals applying to stay in the UK on the basis of marriage have been obliged to have the biometric cards. Now, those required to give their fingerprints to the police will include visitors representing overseas companies in the UK; those visiting for private medical treatment; domestic workers in private households; people with a Commonwealth passport; and people aged over 60 who are able to support themselves, plus their partners and children. At the moment, these groups need only to get a stamp or vignette in their passport.

READ MORE at:-

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39615485,00.htm

And you thought the national DNA database had been curtailed

A recent ruling by the European court of human rights determined that it is illegal for the government to retain DNA profiles and fingerprints belonging to two men never convicted of any crime.

After briefly dancing a jig and thinking that there were hopes yet of turning the tide of state surveillance, the whole world comes crashing down around me once again.

Having been frustrated in their obvious attempts to build a national DNA database, the government has hit on a two pronged attack - first collect everybody's DNA on an NHS database then use the powers from the coroners and justice bill to make it all available via a data sharing order - hey presto a fully inclusive National DNA database without all the bother of trying to get DNA samples from non convicts.

Pretty clever of them eh?

We MUST make it clear that our votes in the next election will go to the party that pledges to undo the damage done by NuLabour.

READ MORE at:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1133118/Well-store-DNA-samples-new-NHS-admits-Department-Health.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/04/dna_fingerprints_echr/
http://www.genewatch.org/sub-563487
http://www.genewatch.org/sub-539478
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHS_National_Programme_for_IT
http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2009/01/23/coroners-and-justice-bill-data-protection/
http://www.no2id.net/news/newsletters/newsletter?issue=115
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/jan/23/data-protection-privacy-jack-straw
http://archrights.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/dna-collection-where-theres-a-will-theres-a-way/

Police chiefs body faces calls for review after cash revelations

I always, perhaps naivly, believed that APCO was simply an organisation set up to facilitate co-operation between police forces and common standards and best practice. Imagine my surprise to read that it is in fact a commercial company earning millions of pounds from services such as selling data from the police national computer to training speed camera operators to marketing logos to security equipment manufacturers.

All this whilst exerting heavy influence on the government and legal system. Doesn't this smack vaguely of conflict of interest to you?


READ MORE at:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/16/police-acpo-cash-claims

We are all extremists now

Seumas Milne from Liberty Central writes:

For most of the past century, Britain's secret state bugged, blacklisted and spied on leftists, trade unionists and peace campaigners, as well as Irish republicans and anyone else regarded as a "subversive" threat to the established order.

That was all supposed to have been brought to a halt in the wake of the end of the cold war in the early 1990s. MI5 now boasts it has ended its counter-subversion work altogether, having other jihadist fish to fry (it will have soon doubled its staffing and budget on the back of the 9/11 backlash).

The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) insists that its confidential intelligence unit – reported last week to be now coordinating surveillance and infiltration of "domestic extremists", including anti-war protesters and strikers – is not in fact a new organisation, but has been part of its public order intelligence operations since 1999, liaising with MI5 and its 44 forces' special branch outfits across the country.

But since Acpo operates as a private company outside the Freedom of Information Act – and the budget and staffing of its confidential intelligence unit are, well, confidential – who's going to hold them to genuine account?

It is this kind of blurring of the distinction between political violence and non-violent protest that has seen catch-all anti-terrorist legislation routinely abused in recent years. That's exactly what seems to have happened over the weekend, when police arrested nine people on the M65 motorway near Preston allegedly on their way to join George Galloway's Viva Palestina aid convoy to Gaza.

READ MORE at:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/16/extremism-arrests-police-liberty-central

Coroners and Justice Bill aka screw the citizen

Henry Porter once again gets to the heart of what this government is doing to us.

This bill is a shocker. Do not be deceived by Jack's title. It is a supermarket trolley full of bits of legislation that the government and the civil service want passed. As well as introducing the opportunity for a minister to decree that an inquest should be held in secret to protect the state, or its relations with foreign powers, it removes exemption for "discussion or criticism" in the new offence of inciting hatred on grounds of sexual orientation; it makes changes to legal aid; reforms bail in murder cases; extends the law of child pornography to include non-photographic images; and facilitates the sharing of personal data by all government departments.

The strategy is clear. Secret inquests will draw the fire on the bill and then - conveniently - there will be no time to debate the huge issue of uncontrolled sharing of personal information between government departments and agencies. As the Lords report on surveillance society stated two weeks ago: "The huge rise in surveillance and data collection by the state risks undermining the long-standing traditions of privacy and individual freedom which are vital for democracy."

READ MORE at:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/15/mps-parliament-reform

From today, it is illegal to photograph the police, despite the fact that they use increasingly aggressive techniques to record us

On the day that it becomes illegal to take pictures of police engaged in counter-terrorist operations – in practice a ban on taking pictures of the police – it is worth noting events in Brighton recently where police set up outside a cafe and photographed people attending a meeting about the environment.

Yet more indications of our slide into totalitarianism where the state can do what it likes to us but we dare not speak out against it.


READ MORE at:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/16/protest-police-liberty-central

The biggest threat to home education that the UK has ever experienced?

Also appearing in the Time Online 'Schoolgate' is an article about the latest review of home education which seems to be seeking to use the Every Child Matters initiative as the latest lever to impose standardisation and monitoring on all children, they can't allow all these independent free thinkers to roam the country now can they?

READ MORE at:-
http://timesonline.typepad.com/schoolgate/2009/02/the-biggest-thr.html

Is Jesus now banned?

The Times Online guide to Britain's Education System, 'Schoolgate' has reported the story of the receptionist facing the sack after her daughter talked about Jesus in class.

I don't have any strong religious beliefs but do believe that people have a right in a free society to talk openly about their beliefs, this surely must be political correctness gone mad mixed with the teachers taking revenge on the receptionist who spoke out against it.

READ MORE at:-
http://timesonline.typepad.com/schoolgate/2009/02/the-story-of-th.html

International Commission of Jurists confirm US and UK are Undermining International Law

The International Commission of Jurists has released a report which concluded that the framework of international law that existed before the 9/11 attacks on the US was robust and effective.But now, it said, it was being actively undermined by many states and liberal democracies like the US and the UK.
The panel said the legal systems put in place after World War II were "well-equipped to handle current terror threats".

It said countries should use civilian legal systems to try suspects and "not resort to ad-hoc tribunals or military courts to try terror suspects".

The report's authors expressed concern at the lack of adequate safeguards in the use of control orders, the weakness of diplomatic assurances in relation to deportations and "excessive detention without charge".

Britain's pre-trial detention time limit of 28 days is one of the longest in the world.

Mr Chaskelson, chairman of the panel, said: "In the course of this inquiry, we have been shocked by the extent of the damage done over the past seven years by excessive or abusive counter-terrorism measures in a wide range of countries around the world.

"Many governments, ignoring the lessons of history, have allowed themselves to be rushed into hasty responses to terrorism that have undermined cherished values and violated human rights.

"The result is a serious threat to the integrity of the international human rights legal framework."

READ MORE at:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7892387.stm

http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=4453&lang=en

http://www.icj.org/IMG/EJP_PRESSE_RELEASE_16.02.09.pdf

http://www.icj.org/IMG/EJPReport.pdf

http://www.icj.org/IMG/EJPExecutiveSummary.pdf

"..this would occur even if their comments fell within the law"

As part of a new 'counter terrorism' drive a senior whitehall official is quoted as saying "..this would occur even if their comments fell within the law" whilst being interviewed about the new 'Contest 2' strategy which aims to 'isolate and publicly reject' those that urge separation. The source is also quoted as saying Britain "needs to identify and back shared values" and "...We now believe that we should challenge people who are against democracy and state institutions".

On the face of it this all sounds like a very reasonable policy to identify leaders seeking to stir up potential extremists and put a stop to their provokative speeches.

However, it worries me to hear talk about silencing people who speak within the law. Surely, if you have not broken any law then the authorities have no right to interfere with you, if the law is not suitable then that is a matter for parliament to debate and correct if necessary, isn't that what democracy is all about? Or do our security forces now have the ability to override the rule of law?

I am also concerned about phrases such as "needs to identify and back shared values", this suggests to me that anyone who does not comply with the official version of the 'shared values' of the state should be 'isolated and rejected'. Afraid this sounds rather like the rhetoric of totalitarian government such as we might have expected in communist Russia.

What happened to 'Freedom of speech', 'Innocent until proven guilty'?

Yes, we need to protect ourselves from those who may harm us but this does not mean we should give the authorities carte blanche to choose who can say what and silence anyone they disagree with even if they have broken no law - that is a dangerous road to follow.

READ MORE at:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7889631.stm

Time for all parents to wake up - Every Child Matters

An excellent analysis of the threat to us all presented under the guise of 'child protection' and the 'Every Child Matters' banner. Thank you to Sometimes it's Peaceful for writing this.

The time has come for all parents to wake up and become aware of the massive legal changes to UK law that are being rolled out and will affect us all. Even parents who live outside of the UK should look out for this coming to their country and try to stop it before it happens. Here, the new system is called Every Child Matters (http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/) and it seeks to monitor and control every aspect of every child's life.

The ECM regime is centred around five 'outcomes', with which every child is expected to comply, but the outcomes don't mean what they imply. "Be healthy," "Stay safe," "Enjoy and achieve," "Make a positive contribution," and "Achieve economic well-being," all sound quite harmless and beneficial, but when you scratch the surface they actually mean something quite different.

The five outcomes are all measured by a whole raft of indicators, and if your child is seen to be failing in any outcome, he or she will be put through an eCAF (http://tinyurl.com/ag6686) which is a long and extremely invasive questionnaire that collects information about every aspect of the child's life, and lodges the answers in the child's file on the new Contactpoint database. If you look at the end of the questions, you will see the requirement for an 'action plan', the progress of which is to be tracked, monitored and recorded on the child's file.

The thing is, the criteria for the outcomes is going to be so tight that it will be almost impossible for every child to reach them all the time. For example, the draft guidance for anyone coming into contact with children on 'When to suspect child maltreatment' (http://tinyurl.com/bv23r2) includes things like inappropriate, or ill-fitting clothes, not taking prescribed medicine, 'excessive clinginess', temper tantrums, or other 'inappropriate behaviour'. If you've got children, you will know that most can and will fall foul of at least one of those points in stressful circumstances. The 'Stay Safe' outcome is then breached and an eCAF carried out.

But the most worrying outcome is the last one. 'Achieve economic wellbeing' actually means that any child whose family on a lower than average income (which is actually quite high: http://tinyurl.com/b76f2r and is worked out *after* housing costs and tax) who is receiving Child Tax Credits, when both parents are not in full-time employment, will fail to meet the outcome and be made the subject of an eCAF and associated action plan. Causing a child to live in [relative] poverty is now seen as abusive and this may not affect you now, but hardly anyone's position is 100% safe in the current economic climate. To address the issue of lack of jobs, the government is working with corporate 'partners' to bring in a full-time compulsory workfare programme.

The 'Every Child Matters' and Anti-Child Poverty programmes are not designed only to help children in real need. Systems are already in place to help those children and our state welfare system ensures that nobody ever needs to go hungry in this country. The intention - and the result, if we do nothing - will be to completely change the nature of normal family life forever.

So what can we do? This is difficult. Most of the changes are happening by Statutory Instrument, which is not voted on in Parliament, so your MP is probably unable to make a difference although it might help to write to them with your concerns (http://www.writetothem.com/). Petitions are usually ignored in matters of major reform programmes such as these, and protest marches seem to have very little effect. Voting for a different political party will not help: all the main parties are committed to doing the same thing, or worse.

Perhaps the most powerful thing you can do just now is to talk to other parents. Pass this message around, post it on forums, send it in emails. If you know anyone who works with children or is likely to come into contact with them in a professional capacity, talk to them especially about it. Ask them if they realise the full extent of the planned changes and consequences, so that pressure can be put on the relevant trade unions to try to resist the process. As a parent, you would be wise to consider your family's position in the light of the changes, and possibly also to advise or warn your children accordingly.

But long-term, these new and invasive laws and systems need to be repealed. The political party system will not do it. We need independent MPs with the strength and integrity to work together in reversing all of the recent seismic legal attacks on our civil liberty. Do you know anyone who would be willing to stand as an independent MP on this issue? It might be the one thing that actually gets people out to vote.

READ MORE at:-
http://sometimesitspeaceful.blogspot.com/2009/02/for-all-parents.html

Sheeple!

I am constantly amazed at how fiercly many people will attack those that try to highlight how the state is eroding our liberties and civil rights.

On a local email list recently the issue of automatic numberplate recognition cameras was raised after someone discovered that their town had a large number of cameras installed, some of which the police had complained were unsuitable for ANPR and should be upgraded.

A number of members of the list vehemently defended their right to be monitored and applauded each other for shouting down the original poster.

I thought I'd share my response with you, I don't imagine it will change anybody's mind and to be honest I am not interested in converting people, I just want to share what I find and voice my outrage at injustice and oppression.

I am truly amazed!

We see more and more surveillance around us, we are subject to more and more opressive legislation, yet you delight in putting down anyone who tries to warn you about what is going on around us.

Any degree of opression can be shown to cut crime. Yes we need to deal with criminals, but in a responsible manner and with respect for the innocent. Just where do we draw the line?

Would you be willing for the police to intercept and inspect every single letter or parcel that gets sent? I'm sure this would catch some criminals!

Would you be willing to have police cameras in every room in your house? This would catch child abusers and paedophiles!

Would you be willing to turn up at the police station every week to be interrogated whilst wired to a lie detector? This would catch some criminals and anti social yobs!

I'm not saying that any of the above are likely but just where do you draw the line between reasonable policing of a generally law abiding society and totalitarian government where people get arrested and jailed for years on 'suspicion' of commiting some crime against society?

Many recent laws in the UK have been drafted to be so vague that the police can pretty much decide for themselves whether you have broken the law - you have no idea in advance!

Fancy going out for a day trip sightseeing and take a few snaps? From Monday, a police officer can decide that your picture could be 'useful to a terrorist' and hey presto you face a 10 year prison sentence. Don't believe me? then look up the answer to question 717 on the police national legal database :-

Quote - "From Monday 16th February 2009 there is a new offence concerning eliciting information about members of armed forces, police officers and intelligence services which is likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or publishes or communicates information of that kind. does not state that the person who gets the information has to use the information for terrorism purposes, just that the information is likely to be useful to a terrorist."

 I could go on and on quoting the laws and examples of people who have been wrongly accused such as the 15 year old schoolboy arrested for taking a photo at a railway station with his mobile phone but frankly there are too many of them and I don't have the energy to argue with
those that are happy to accept what is happening.

I do not knowingly break any laws and do my best not to cause harm to others by my actions or inactions but I deeply resent the unnecessary intrusions of the authorities whilst I go about my lawful daily life.

I resent the amount of money that the government take off me in taxes to pay for this unnecessary monitoring and control, just think how much less your income tax and council tax would be if billions of pounds were not being spent on excessive policing and surveillance, if it actually cut crime then one might argue its merits yet we are constantly being told that crime is rising, vandalism is rising, the threat of terrorism is rising. I FOR ONE DON'T BELIEVE IT FOR ONE MOMENT.

'Democratic Britain' or Communist Russia?

I thought that this kind of thing only happened in oppressive regimes such as Russia under the old communist regime. This is quite an old video, more recently we have had armed police checking cars for MOT and Insurance documents, Police stopping and searching passengers at rail stations.

Long gone time to get worried!

Jon Snow speaks out against erosion of our civil liberties

'The balance has been tipped against civil liberties'

The Channel 4 news presenter tells liberty central why we need to debate issues from ID cards to the right to protest.

VIEW THE VIDEO at:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2009/jan/23/liberty-central-jon-snow-civil-liberties

Licence to Spy on Drinkers

A letter sent in to The Guardian recently, I don't think there is anything to add really - just read the letter and decide for yourself whether you think this is reasonable in a 'Free Society' or more typical of a police state.

I have recently agreed to take on a pub in a residential part of Islington. Under normal circumstances this would have simply involved the existing licence holder signing over the premises' licence to me. Unfortunately they had gone insolvent and disappeared so I applied for a new licence, which requires the approval of a number of organisations, including the police. I was stunned to find the police were prepared to approve, ie not fight, our licence on condition that we installed CCTV capturing the head and shoulders of everyone coming into the pub, to be made available to them upon request. There was no way that they could have imposed this on the previous licence holder.

As it happens the Islington Labour party headquarters is on the same street as the pub and, being a member, I contacted the MP Emily Thornberry to see if she really thinks she needs her photo taken when she pops in for a pint - needless to say I have not heard from her. I also spoke with a friend who is the licensing officer for another borough. Not only did he tell me that there was nothing I could do to overturn this, he also strongly advised me not to blot my copybook with the police by even questioning the request; I would not want them against me in the future, he said.

I have been spitting teeth in a silent rage since I first heard of this request, but at every turn I am alternately advised to keep my head down or laughed at for my naivety for thinking that the world was ever not thus. When was it that the constant small erosion of our liberties became irreversible?
Nick Gibson
London

READ MORE at:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/feb/11/police-surveillance-cctv-pubs

Truancy rises by a third despite a parent being jailed every two weeks - they still can't see it doesn't work

In 2002, Patricia Amos hit the headlines when she was the first parent to be imprisoned because of her truanting daughter. There was an outcry at the time and many people said that this was not the way to tackle truancy.

Now, 7 years on, the authorities are jailing a parent every 2 weeks during term time and truancy figures have continued to rise. Any sensible person would, by now, recognise that jailing parents does not work. yet Children's Minister Delyth Morgan is quoted as saying "It's important that we back schools and local authorities in using these powers to tackle problem absentees and bad behaviour, they rightly make parents take responsibility for their children,".

This is the same minister that accused home educating parents of being potential abusers by claiming "home education could be used as a cover for abuse".

This government and its advisors seem to live in some parallel universe, they certainly don't live in the same world as me.

In the case of 'problem' families whose children are truanting regularly they should recognise that the family needs help not punishment! What do they think is the likely outcome when family relationships are breaking down and the parent is sent to jail because of the truanting of a child? Isn't this going to simply create further alienation and resentment? IT DOESN'T WORK!

They have largely destroyed any sense of community or family by imposing their position of parent of first resort and intrusively monitoring and controlling nearly every aspect of our lives.

It is the sense of 'belonging' to the community or family that needs to return, it cannot be imposed 'from the top down', it can only be cultured by giving people the freedom and respect to determine their own lives.

Yes there must be rules, but they should be the minimum necessary, fair to all, and equally applicable to all levels of society instead of the current system of different rules for the elite compared to the masses.

READ MORE at:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7868061.stm

Counter Terrorism Act 2008 - "attempting to elicit information" and secret DNA sampling and data sharing etc. come into force on February 16th 2009

The awful and unnecessary Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 is creeping into force, having been partially commenced by the rubber stamping of this Order:

2009 No.58 (C.6) - Prevention And Suppression Of Terrorism - The Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (Commencement No. 2) Order 2009

The War on Photographers , and Military Historians and Biographers etc. intensifies, by making it a serious terrorist crime to "attempt to elicit" information e.g. name, address, photograph etc.,about a current or former member of the Police, Armed Forces or Intelligence Services.

It does not matter if there is a legal defence available to you in Court, it is too late for your liberty and career, once you have been tainted and blacklisted, by being arrested under a terrorism law, even if you are never charged or are found not guilty.

How soon before this law is used to threaten, harass and arrest political demonstrators or activists, who take photos of the Police etc. who are taking photos of them ?

READ MORE at:-

http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2009/01/counter-terrorism-act-2008---attempting-to-elicit-information-and-secret-dna-sam.html

Mass photography protest - 11 am Monday 16th February 2009, Metropolitan Police HQ, New Scotland Yard

A chance to get your own back?

Comedian Mark Thomas is to join with NUJ members in an event to highlight the threat of a new UK law that could be used against press photographers taking pictures of the police.

The Counter Terrorism Act allows for the arrest and imprisonment of anyone whose pictures are "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism".

The union is joining with campaigners to organise a mass picture taking session outside London's police HQ on Monday 16 February - the day the act becomes law.

In theory, this act now makes it illegal to take photos of any of the following:-

(a) The front of number 10 Downing Street with the policeman standing beside the famous door
(b) a scene at a football match if policemen are in the view
(c) The Queen in her royal carriage if members of the armed forces or police or security services are in the picture as well
(d) A police station since the photograph may contain car number plates which may or may not be owned by policemen who could then be identified based on their cars
(e) Buckingham Palace if any members of the armed forces are in the photo
(f) Police on horseback charging down peaceful protesters. So no photographic evidence could be used if it later turns out that these very same police on horseback killed some of the rioters in their horse charge.
(g) RAF air displays since members of the armed forces might be identified in your photos.
(h) The joyful homecoming of HRH Royal Navy ships with all the sailors lined up on the upper decks, since with even using a 3M pixel digital cameras and no zoom, sailors could be identified from your photos.
(i) UK troops serving abroad or anywhere could not be photographed. So you couldn't show in national newspapers them operating in various conflict zones around the world.

This fits in with much recent legislation which leaves the crime definition so open and vague that it can be applied to nearly anyone, effectively making us dependent on the benevolence (or otherwise) of the police in order to stay out of jail! I don't think even cold war Russia was this bad!

READ MORE at:-
http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2009/02/mass-photography-protest---11-am-monday-16th-february-2009-metropolitan-police-h.html

Is this where we are heading (or are we already there?)

It was the roses that got me into trouble.

I had gone to talk to the owner of the greenhouses for an environmental story I have been working on.

By the time I realised I had broken the law, it was too late.

My crime was not just to be within the town - to be honest, I did not realise I was, because the greenhouses were well outside the built-up area - but to be a foreigner within the town.

This story by the BBC tells the tale of a journalist who entered the administrative area of a town which foreigners were not allowed to enter, the event happened in Russia, in a town where military submarines are housed.

I can't help thinking of our drift here in the UK towards laws being introduced that we are not aware of and don't know we are breaking.

I never thought that I would hear of someone being arrested for reading out the names of the war dead at the cenotaph.

I never thought I would hear of the police rounding up football supporters in a pub before a match and escorting them out of town.

I never thought that I would hear of the police stopping protestors on their way to a peaceful demonstration at RAF Fairford and escorting them all the way back to London without even allowing stops for visits to the loo or sickness.

I get worried seeing the UK authorities seizing draconian powers while the people blindly agree that we must lose our liberties in order to keep us safe.


READ MORE at :-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7883539.stm

The secret police are watching you

How can an organisation that is not subject to public scrutiny set up a sinister unit to monitor political and environmental groups?

"A secret police intelligence unit has been set up to spy on leftwing and rightwing political groups," said the story in the Mail on Sunday. Who has decided that political and environmental groups consisting of individuals, who are guaranteed the rights of demonstration, association, free speech and privacy under the Human Rights Act, should be spied upon by this new sinister police unit?

The answer is the Association of Chief Police Officers – and that is the problem.

Few understand that ACPO is a private company, which happens to be funded by a Home Office grant and money from 44 police authorities. But despite its important role in drafting and implementing policies that affect the fundamental freedoms of this country, ACPO is protected from freedom of information requests and its proceedings remain largely hidden from public view. In reality ACPO is no more troubled by public scrutiny than the freemasons.

Now the police have set up the confidential intelligence unit to monitor the political life of this nation. The only reason we know of this is because the Mail on Sunday followed up an internal police job advertisement for the head of the confidential intelligence unit, who would work closely with government departments, university authorities and private sector companies "to remove the threat of criminality and public disorder that arises from domestic extremism". The story tells us that the CIU will also prevent details of its operations being made public.

This surely must ring a few alarm bells, even among our complacent MPs who have allowed this tiny state-within-a-state to flourish over the past decade. It is evident that the CIU will not be troubled by any public accountability and that the individual who becomes its head will be able to make decisions unilaterally about the nation's politics. If all environmental groups are to be branded extreme, if those who demonstrate against the invasion of Gaza are, as a matter of course, to be regarded as a criminal threat, we will enter a period of enormous tension between the authorities and those people who wish to exercise their legitimate right to demonstrate.

I thought we were becoming a police state, now I know that happened some timeback.


READ MORE at:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/feb/10/police-civil-liberties

Stop and search? Carry the card

Now here's a piece of journalism I like.

Download, print and carry the stop and search card, hand it over to any police officer who stops you and make sure they understand that if the search is intrusive or unlawful you will be taking action and seeking compensation through the courts, this may be the only way to stop this offensive treatment of the general public - hit back at what they care about - their money, after all it is the tool of choice for the authorities so let's play them at their own game.

REDA MORE at:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/09/liberty-central-stop-and-search-police

Obama begins cybersecurity review

A review of how well the US thwarts spies and malicious hackers has been started by President Barack Obama.

The end result will be a strategy to improve the way the US defends itself against net-borne threats.

While campaigning, President Obama likened net risks to the threat of nuclear or biological attack.

Just who's he kidding, as far as I was aware a nuclear or biological attack usually means people die or get seriously hurt whilst a net attack means inconvenience or costs money to deal with

..... Of course, I was forgetting - it's the money that matters, people will replace themselves whilst the government cannot replace the money that was lost. Plus the side benefit that we may all be persuaded to accept monitoring and restrictions online so that the government can 'protect us' from this dire threat.

.... Now I understand!


READ MORE at:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7880695.stm

Teens targeted in net safety push

The BBC reports that

Half of Europe's teenagers browse the web with no parental oversight or supervision, a survey suggests.

The research into the web habits of 20,000 14 to 19-year-olds across Europe found that 51% enjoy unfettered access to any and every website.

Well I should b&%&*y think so too! considering that you can get married at 16 and you are legally an adult at 18 I would think it completely unreasonable to have to be supervised while using the net, I know what my reaction would have been at that age.

How dare people continue to treat young people as children way beyond the age at which they are legally adults and considered old enough to work, vote, pay taxes, die for their country.

Grrrrr, about time nanny learned when she wasn't welcome and minded her own business! Like keeping an eye on MP's expenses, supervising the financial industry, keeping the economy healthy.

As my grandfather said "too many do-gooders to do any bl%&dy good"

EU fines firm E35,000 for selling 'illegal' seeds

Even in these days of oppressive monitoring and control I was naiive enough to think that a farmer for example could grow his traditional crops and either sell the produce or perhaps allow the seeds to develop and sell them on - seems a reasonable enough activity to me!

Now I have (belatedly) read about the independent seed saving and selling association Kokopelli which was prosecuted under EU laws making it illegal to sell seed varieties which are not registered and approved, even if the seeds are old varieties which have been around for thousands of years!

Do I hear you say "couldn't we just register the seeds then?", in the UK it costs £2,000 + to register a 'new' variety and then £300 every year to maintain that registration. Small beer to the big outfits like Monsanto but impossibly expensive for small or non-profit organisations.

On the brighter side :-) there are still ways around this:-

Kokopelli offer a membership scheme where different levels of members will be issued with various seeds to grow, you can even adopt a seed to culture and preserve.

Garden Organic use a similar scheme, whereby you become a seed guardian and pass the seed on to others.

At a more local level, you could hold a Seed Swap. Visit Seedy Sunday to find out more and for help in organising one.


READ MORE at:-
http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news6221.htm

http://www.seedysunday.org/

http://www.kokopelli-seeds.com/

http://organicgardening.org.uk/hsl/

Identity cards 'could be used to spy on people'

Shock horror -Members of the Home Affairs Select Committee said they were concerned that the way the authorities use sensitive data gathered in the multi-billion pound programme could "creep" to include spying. Well, I never would have thought of that one would I?

I cannot quite figure whether politicians are incredibly naiive and blinkered or simply lying through their collective teeth.

They pass laws giving the authorities incredibly wide ranging powers to monitor and control us but seem surprised to learn that those powers may actually get used for more than they were intended for.

A bit like the anti harrasment laws which are now being used to protect unethical companies from legitimate protest.


READ MORE at:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2093784/Identity-cards-could-be-used-to-spy-on-people.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/3561963/A-sinister-Act-of-subterfuge.html

https://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/47452/ID-cards-may-be-used-to-spy-on-us-

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-right-of-peaceful-protest/harassment-and-interference-with-contracts.html

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/04/308039.html

Litter Lout Terrorists?

I don't like people who drop litter or allow their dogs to foul public spaces; I get angry when people misuse disabled badges but I would hardly regard any of them as 'terrorists', yet local authorities admit to using anti terror legislation which permits them to carry out surveillance operations against you in order to investigate these henious 'crimes'.

Apply for a school place for your child and the council may place you under surveillance to make sure that you are telling the truth on your application!

But of course, I forgot - if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear - silly me!

READ MORE at:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1904583/Councils-admit-using-anti-terror-laws-to-spy-on-public.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2696031/Anti-terrorism-laws-used-to-spy-on-noisy-children.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2248295/Second-council-admits-using-anti-terror-surveillance-over-school-places.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/2910962/Council-uses-anti-terror-rules-to-spy-on-man-with-noisy-wardrobe.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3333366/Half-of-councils-use-anti-terror-laws-to-spy-on-bin-crimes.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2696035/Anti-terrorism-laws-Snoops-persecute-minor-offenders-as-crooks-avoid-justice.html

Telegraph - The Government is creating a surveillance state

Even in the name of countering crime, why should the state know everything about us?

The evidence is growing by the week that the Government is creating a surveillance state.

It was confirmed yesterday that a database containing the international travel records of all citizens is being compiled; and Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, is drawing up plans to keep similar details of every phone call and email that is sent.

In addition, the records of all children are to be held on a system called ContactPoint, a national ID database is currently being developed, all health records currently held by GPs will be centrally available and a database of DNA profiles, ostensibly for criminals, is being built by stealth.

Meanwhile, the ubiquitous CCTV cameras in every public space make personal privacy increasingly hard to maintain. Even in the name of countering crime or combating terrorism, why should the state know where you are going, where you have been and whom you call while watching everyone's movements on camera?

Concerns about these developments are no longer confined to a few people dismissed by ministers as paranoid obsessives who fail to understand the security requirements of the modern state. Last year, a Commons select committee made a number of recommendations about the need for new regulations, controls and restrictions on state accumulation of information about its citizens. A few days ago, a House of Lords committee published a report stating unequivocally that monitoring the everyday activities of innocent individuals was becoming "pervasive" and "routine". The peers noted that this intrusiveness had altered the relationship between the state and its citizens and represented "one of the most significant changes in the life of the nation since the end of the Second World War". The peers also observed that most Britons were unaware of the extent of these surveillance practices and did not fully appreciate their potential consequences. One reason for this is the lamentable record of the Commons in curtailing these developments.

However, while the Government says it recognises that many people may well feel uncomfortable with the increase in surveillance it insists is for their own good and proposes to do nothing to curtail it. Indeed, the Coroners and Justice Bill currently before parliament contains powers to let Whitehall departments and other state agencies use and share personal data for whatever purpose a minister sees fit. This removes protections that exist in statute precisely to stop this happening.

If parliament is really serious about halting the advance of the surveillance state it must draw the line now and throw out this pernicious measure.


READ MORE at:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/4560123/The-Government-is-creating-a-surveillance-state.html

OUR CARING OFFICIALS

It is good to read a nice heartwarming story of how a public servant went out of his/her way to help someone......

Unfortunately I couldn't find one and nearly exploded with rage when I read about the ba*&%$^d who slapped a parking ticket on a car when the couple inside pulled over to see to their baby daughter who was having difficulty breathing and needed an inhaler, ...... obviously just doing his job of course.......... I'm not normally violent but reckon I could be in that situation!!

'Callous' warden gives parents parking ticket after they pull over to help sick baby daughter

A couple were shocked to be issued a parking fine after pulling over to help their sick child.

Christine Ireland, 23, and partner Christopher Horton, 29, claim they had stopped the car to give their breathless baby daughter Caitlin an inhaler when a parking warden approached.

When they explained the emergency, he allegedly told them 'that's not my problem' and gave them a £70 fine.

The couple said they were driving through Hull, Yorkshire, on Tuesday after visiting their bank in the city centre when Caitlin started struggling to breathe.

She was born with a collapsed lung and pneumonia and has an undiagnosed breathing condition.

Miss Ireland, who is a full-time carer for her daughter, said: 'We were driving home when Caitlin's breathing became really heavy.

'We pulled over to the nearest safe place, which was a bus stop, to give her an inhaler.

'Then a parking warden knocked on our window. He told us we couldn't park there and started writing out a ticket.

She said the warden insisted they move on and even threatened to report them to the police if they didn't.

She said: 'He just kept saying "that child should be in a car seat" and that he was going to report us to the police.

'Caitlin was in a car seat, but I took her out as she always puts up a fight when you give her the medication.

'I told the warden she was a sick child with a condition, but he just said "you need to move off or I'll report you". I couldn't believe he still issued us with a ticket.



READ MORE at:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1138284/Callous-warden-gives-parents-parking-ticket-pull-help-sick-baby-daughter.html

Expenses row: 'Lodger' deal earns Jacqui Smith £100,000 as she claims sister's house is main home

I know it is a fantasy of mine, but I really would like to see an honest politician who clearly felt they were serving the public and should only spend OUR money in a responsible and frugal manner instead of fleecing the taxpayer at every possible opportunity.

Today I read in the Daily Mail about Jaquie Smith's expenses. While her family lives in the West Midlands, she claims that her sister's house in London is her main residence and therefore her family home is a second home necessary because of her parliamentary duties.

Now, I'm wondering, if you were in business and made a similar claim - would the inland revenue accept it? or would they tell you where to get off and get real!!

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has claimed more than £116,000 in Commons expenses for a 'second home' while effectively lodging with her sister.

Ms Smith claims the maximum parliamentary second-home allowance, currently a tax-free £24,006 a year, on the detached house in her West Midlands constituency, where her husband and two young children live and which she bought for £300,000 five years ago.

She is able to do so because she has told the Commons authorities that her 'main home' is a house in London owned solely by her sister, Sara, where she stays on some weekdays.

Nor is this the only large expense caused by the Home Secretary's decision to share her sister's house.

Two policemen provide a round-the-clock guard at the South London property, costing taxpayers an estimated £200,000 a year. The two officers are stationed at the property on a shift basis.

There would have been no need for such protection had Ms Smith opted to live in one of two vacant grace-and-favour ministerial homes in Whitehall when she became Home Secretary in 2007 as they already have police protection.

READ MORE at:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1138782/Expenses-row-Lodger-deal-earns-Jacqui-Smith-100-000-claims-sisters-house-main-home.html

Spy centre will track you on holiday

I have read the following article today in the Times. One more step towards a total surveillance society, I used to think that the UK was becoming more and more like George Orwell's book 1984, now I think we have gone way past it in many respects - George Orwell couldn't imagine how technology could advance so far and control so many facets of our lives.

THE government is building a secret database to track and hold the international travel records of all 60m Britons.

The intelligence centre will store names, addresses, telephone numbers, seat reservations, travel itineraries and credit card details for all 250m passenger movements in and out of the UK each year.

The computerised pattern of every individual’s travel history will be stored for up to 10 years, the Home Office admits.

The government says the new database, to be housed in an industrial estate in Wythenshawe, near Manchester, is essential in the fight against crime, illegal immigration and terrorism. However, opposition MPs, privacy campaigners and some government officials fear it is a significant step towards a total surveillance society.

Some immigration officials with knowledge of the plans admit there is likely to be public concern. “A lot of this stuff will have a legitimate use in the fight against crime and terrorism, but it’s what else it could be used for that presents a problem,” said one.

“It will be able to detect whether parents are taking their children abroad during school holidays. It could be useful to the tax authorities because it will tell them how long non-UK domiciled people are spending in the UK.”

The database is also expected to monitor people’s travel companions.

READ MORE at:-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/news/article5683677.ece

The surveillance society has arrived

Fears that the UK would "sleep-walk into a surveillance society" have become a reality, the government's information commissioner has said.

Richard Thomas, who said he raised concerns two years ago, spoke after research found people's actions were increasingly being monitored.

Researchers highlight "dataveillance", the use of credit card, mobile phone and loyalty card information, and CCTV.

Monitoring of work rates, travel and telecommunications is also rising.

There are up to 4.2m CCTV cameras in Britain - about one for every 14 people.

But surveillance ranges from US security agencies monitoring telecommunications traffic passing through Britain, to key stroke information used to gauge work rates and GPS information tracking company vehicles, the Report on the Surveillance Society says.

Download Surveillance Society Report

READ MORE at:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6108496.stm

CCTV boom has not cut crime, says police chief. But more money will be spent on it!

What a surprise!

Someone has finally realised that the multitude of CCTV cameras installed all over the country, providing practically continuous coverage of everything we do, have nothing to do with crime reduction.

Detective Chief Inspector Mick Neville said it was a “fiasco” that only 3 per cent of street robberies in London were solved using CCTV.

Unfortunately, in true government style, this means that they will throw more money at it.

Britain has more CCTV cameras than any other country in Europe. But Mr Neville is reported in The Guardian as saying that more training was needed for officers who often avoided trawling through CCTV images “because it’s hard work”.

Viido had launched a series of initiatives including a new database of images that will be used to track and identify offenders using software developed for the advertising industry ....... and building a national CCTV database that will hold images of convicted criminals and unidentified suspects.

READ MORE at:-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3877670.ece

Some links to videos on surveillance

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_6100000/newsid_6108500?redirect=6108562.stm&news=1&bbwm=1&bbram=1&nbwm=1&nbram=1

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6100000/newsid_6108500/6108562.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&bbcws=1

Privacy International Report on Data Sharing

The UK government has proposed to legislate, in its 'Coroners and Justice Bill', for wide scale sharing of personal data. The scale of the danger to privacy should be seen in the light of other current UK proposals, such as mass communications data surveillance and nationwide vehicle surveillance. These latter projects constitute a major threat, but do not encompass the breadth or potential corrosive effect on existing protections.

The mass exchange of personal information has the potential to deliver some benefit, however it also presents vast risks associated with governance, privacy, security and human autonomy. In the rush to institute data sharing, these aspects have largely been ignored.

Privacy International took the decision to prepare this report on the basis both of the dangers inherent in the legislative proposals and the unprecedented way in which they have been created.

The aim of this report is to bring to the attention of the public, parliament and media the urgent need to consider the extraordinary dangers created by the proposal. Previously people’s consent was required, but now the consent of the governed is not longer being sought. In fact, the Government’s proposal eradicates consent from the governing framework, thus placing not only our data at risk but also fundamental tenets of our democracy.

Conclusions

This policy has been the overarching vision of the UK Government since the late 1990s. We are surprised it has taken so long to devise a policy of this breadth and with such disregard for even the most basic safeguards. Despite continuous debates about genetic databases, health databases, and biometric databases, everything has been done to ignore debate on this policy. This can serve only to destabilise any decision made by Parliament on these other matters.

The problems with this law is as follows:

1. Based on an illegitimate consultation process over a ten-year period, created to justify whatever the Government drafted into law. Even the Information Commissioner’s Office has been compromised.
2. Avoids Parliamentary scrutiny by pushing orders through secondary legislation.
3. Consists of meaningless protections and oversight, where the ICO may provide comments to Parliament in a process where Parliament is not permitted to amend the order.

The report is available in full in PDF here.

Visit Privacy International at:-

http://www.privacyinternational.org/index.shtml