The One That Wonders How They Can Be So Wrong, So Often . . .

It is a source of constant amazement to me how this government just gets things wrong, time and time and time again. It defies belief that beyond handing control of interest rates to the Bank of England (a subject I know very little about, I am no economist), almost every single thing this government has done has been wrong.

Blair was always banging on about how his biggest acheivements were the minimum wage and the Human Rights Act, an item of legislation that is impossible to view without seeing it sat as a part of the European Convention on Human Rights. Yet the remarkable thing is, the entire history of this government is punctuated by them fighting, appealing and losing against challenges brought under this act.

As has been reported widly in the media and blogosphere today, the EuroCourt has ruled that powers of stop and search are illegal under human rights legislation. Apparently, the powers were 'not sufficiently circumscribed' and 'adequate legal safeguards against abuse' were not in place.

This speaks volumes to me. My initial reaction is that to stop someone who is walking down the street just because you want to know what they are up to is just wrong. To do it under the pretence of preventing terrorism is even more wrong. It is objectionable, it is using the flimsiest of excuses, preying on public fears in a most cynical fashion and is against all the traditions of British liberties.

The ruling from Europe seems to be not on those grounds, but on the grounds that the legislation these powers are exercised under is not sufficiently robust. It's almost an invitation to find a better excuse to do it.

Not that it is going to make a big difference anyway. Just as the government were told they couldn't record people's most personal data on a whim, they've decided they'll keep on doing it, they're hardly likely to stop this nice little tool to keep people in their place are they? Just as they blow the paedophile and rapist dog whistle with DNA, they'll continue to blow the terrorism whistle about stop and search. As Old Holborn has pointed out today, the Met stopped 200,000 people under these anti-terror powers in 2008, and yet not one of these people have been charged.

Terrorism is a useful stick to beat people with, it's difficult to object or argue with powers used against people declared as being or supporting terrorists. I certainly find people like that objectionable.

The other day I blogged about Islam4UK and what was going to happen about the proposed march in Wootton-Bassett. The answer now is not a lot, beyond me briefly attracting a semi-literate troll. Having had their five minutes in the limelight, Islam4UK announced that they were scrapping the plans.

It troubled me how many people were screaming for this march to be banned. I did not and would never support the message these people were trying to put across, but we nominally live in a country where we have the right to expres our opinion. And that's the thing about free speech, it means you occasionally have to hear things you don't much care for, it also means that people have the right to demonstrate against free speech. Well, be careful what you wish for, you may just get it.

Al Jolson, or whatever the Home Sec is called has announced that Islam4UK will become a proscribed organisation. I'm not aware of any terrorist attacks carried out by them, I'm not aware of any plots by Islam4UK being uncovered, nor any court cases relating to any activities in preparation of terror attacks. I am aware of them being insulting, objectionable and general fuckwits. But is that grounds to ban them and to chuck any members inside for 10 years?

Many people will greet news of this order with a single word; 'good'. But I'm not so sure. The Home Office say that they are a branch of al-Ghurabaa, who I understand were Omar Bakri Mohammed's lot. I can't say that they are or they aren't, it is just that I cannot accept any information from government at face value. They've lied to us so much, cried wolf so many times, that anything they say is received by me with immense scepticism.

What is for sure is that Omar Bakri Mohammed and Anjem Choudary are two people that I would be happy to see suffer massive and fatal heart attacks tomorrow, but there's this nagging feeling that every time this power is used, every time it is nodded through in the House, makes the next group's demonisation easier. Quite rightly, few people will shed a tear at the removal of Islam4UK from the scene (at least until they re-brand), but it brings us one step closer to a perfectly legitimate group you or I may belong to being banned under the accusation of terror, just because it is politically expedient to do so. These people have a list, and they will get as far down it as they can, will remove as many people that aren't them as possible before someone with real clout says, 'hang on a minute'. By that point it may be too late.

Two final points. Firstly, I wonder if the English Defence League are on that list? I'm betting they are. They don't play nicely and won't do as they are told, just like Islam4UK. Secondly, this is the real sign of this government's dog days, when they begin to turn on their pets.

The One That Knows In This Country, She'd Be Charged With Murder. . .

An Indian farmer's daugher disarmed a terrorist leader who broke into her home, attacked him with an axe and shot him dead with his own gun.

Fantastic. He'll not be doing that again.

Rukhsana Kausar, 21, was with her parents and brother in Jammu and Kashmir when three gunmen, believed to be Pakistani militants, forced their way in and demanded food and beds for the night.

Militants often demand food and lodging in nearby villages.

When they forced their way into Miss Kausar’s home, her father Noor Mohammad refused their demands and was attacked.

His daughter was hiding under a bed when she heard him crying as the gunmen thrashed him with sticks. According to police, she ran towards her father’s attacker and struck him with an axe. As he collapsed, she snatched his AK47 and shot him dead.

She also shot and wounded another militant as he made his escape.

In this country she'd up before the courts for breaking their Yoomanrites.

Miss Kausar said she had never fired an assault rifle before but had seen it in films and could not stand by while her father was being hurt. “I couldn’t bear my father’s humiliation. If I’d failed to kill him, they would have killed us,” she said.

One less of them . . .

The One That Wonders What Happens When The Police Break The Law. . .

An 84-year-old activist questioned under the Terrorism Act while wearing an anti-Tony Blair T-shirt believes the powers are "persecuting innocents".

Well, yes. Difficult to pick fault with anything the old boy says there.

John Catt, from Sussex, was protesting outside Brighton's Labour Party Conference in 2005 when he was stopped and searched under the 2000 act.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission found his arrest unlawful.

So, the IPCC said his arrest was unlawful, Sussex police's reaction?

The officer "believed in good faith that the stop and search was authorised by law".

Well, that's as maybe. Firstly, he was wrong. Secondly, where was the injury? Was anyone damaged, was anyone out of pocket, did anyone have property destroyed? No. Quite simply there was no need to make this arrest.

Isolated incident?

He was also put on the PNC with an 'of interest' marker. He was subsequently pulled over by an anti-terror unit on a trip to London when his car pinged on ANPR.

Isolated incident?

I posted the video the other day of the poor old boy being ejected from the Labour Party conference and getting similar treatment when he attempted to re-enter the building.

Isolated incident?

Alex Turner was arrested by Kent Police for being 'too tall' by all accounts (Cheers, OH).

Isolated incident?

A man was detained for taking a photograph of a police car.

Isolated incident?

Police confiscate crayons and toys at the Kingsnorth protest.

Isolated incident?

How many isolated incidents can we have before they cease to become isolated? I hate browbeating the police. I like them. I know more than my fair share of police officers, and those that I know would surprise me a great deal if they proved themselves to be anything but sensible, level-headed, committed individuals who want nothing beyond locking up bad guys.

Is it down to the target culture? Is it down to the politicisation of the senior ranks? Is it down to a small, but ever growing number of over zealous officers who want to exercise a feeling of power?

One thing that is clear, as these episodes increase and become more widely reported (the original article at the start of this posting is a lead story on the BBC down here this evening) trust in the police will erode. As trust erodes, more police officers will feel resentful, if not threatened. As that resent and threatened feeling expands, more people will be stopped, harrassed and slapped back into line, to prevent any action against the police on the street, and the erosion of trust is accelerated.

It must stop, and I'm afraid blood must be let. The officer that made the illegal arrest must lose his job. If he acts like that because an old man is wearing a T-shirt, will he taser a man for doing 10mph over the limit? Will he wrap his asp around the head of a shoplifter? Sorry, he has demonstrated he cannot be trusted with the authority given to him by US.

Senior officers must be called to account. It happens once, the Chief Constable gets a wrap on the knuckles and is told to make it clear this is not acceptable. It happens a second time, the C.C. finds his force subject to a review of all arrests under the Terrorism Act. It happends a third time, the sack. No pay-off. Gone. Take out the Inspector, Chief Inspector and Super if you have to. This ridiculous and insulting policing is just as bad as the old bent copper scenario. This is not why we have them.

The One That Thinks Their Toy Should Be Taken Away. . .

Buried away in the dark recesses of Pravda online is this:

Police stopped and searched three times as many people under anti-terrorism powers in 2007/8 compared to the year before, Home Office figures reveal.

Hmmm, OK. But that doesn't really tell us much does it? One person could have been stopped in the previous year, and three this year would mean, well, I don't have to spell it out, I'm sure you can do the maths.

Some 124,687 stops and searches were conducted in England and Wales under anti-terror laws.

Right, so that means the equivalent of the whole city of Gloucester was stopped and searched. Bloody hell. It's a dangerous place out there, that's a lot of people looking like terrorists, isn't it?

Almost 90% of searches took place in London, the statistics reveal.

Well, now there's a surprise. Given the almost hysterical reaction from the PCSOs in Westminster on OH's little walk last November, I'm surprised it wasn't 99.9% of people. Still, they must have had good reason. I bet they stopped some terrorists.

Didn't they?

73 - 0.058% - ended in arrests for terror offences.

You see, it was. . . WHAT? Seventy pissing three? Out of almost 125,000 people? Christ on a fucking bike with a bell, basket and playing card stuck in the spokes. 73? Are they taking the piss?

Following anti-terrorism searches, some 1,198 people were arrested for other reasons.

Right. So in a total of 124,687 stops, 1271 people, that's 1.01%, had been sufficiently criminal or stupid to get nicked. Let's face it, you can get nicked for anything these days. And they only managed to scuff a gnat's chuff over 1% of the people they stopped?

This isn't anti-terror policing, this is making a bloody nusiance of yourself. A charter for people to be a pain in the bloody arse.

What isn't clear from this report is how many of the 73 arrested under anti-terror legislation* were charged, and then how many were convicted. I'd love to know. Has 12 months of invasive, heavy-handed nosiness lead to anyone appearing in court?

Bloody hell. Surely, surely, there's better things to do with your time than this? Or is it just that the wrong people are being stopped? I mean, we're told they're everywhere. Bloody Diss is alive with them.

This is not a mechanism for national security, it is a mechanism to let people know that they're being watched, and had better behave themselves, or else.

What a crock of shit, and then they've the nerve to put up posters saying things like 'This nuclear power station will not be bombed because someone called us when they spotted someone on their flight back from Malaga looking at it out of the window next to their seat.'

Give me bloody strength. . .

*and why do the media and politicians persist in calling it anti-terror legislation? You're hardly likely to have pro-terror legislation are you? Another example of pandering to the hard of thinking.

The One That Thinks It Could Have Been So Different. . .

A puzzling line taken from Al-Beeb today in the report that Dr. Bilal Abdulla, who was behind the abortive West London bomb attack and the partially succesful one against Glasgow airport (more Shite than Shi'ite terrorists) has been found guilty.

This line jumps out at me:

'Abdulla an Iraqi who was born in the UK, was one of two bombers. . .'

I can't help wondering that if he had been, say, the winner of the BBC Sports Personality on Sunday would he still have been an Iraqi born in the UK? I'm guessing not.

I'd be interested to see how many terrorist attacks have been carried out by people from outside the British Isles in the years since the war. I'm betting very, very few.

The One That Is Saying 'Thank You very much'. . .

Three cheers for Sir Ken MacDonald QC, the outgoing Director of Public Prosecutions who has warned against 'the paraphernalia of paranoia' and 'medieval delusions' that dominate the current mania for surveillance and logging every facet of our existence.

He said:

'We need to take very great care not to fall into a way of life in which freedom's back is broken by the relentless pressure of a security state'

Well, amen to that.

'We need to understand that it is in the nature of state power that decisions taken in the next few months and years about how the state may use these powers, and to what extent, are likely to be irreversible. They will be with us forever. And they will in turn will be built upon.'

So in other words, watch out, it might be the naaaaaaaaaasty eeeeeeeeeevil brown people at the moment, but watch out, because you'll find that you're a lot higher on the list than you anticipated.

'So we should take very great care to imagine the world we are creating before we build it. We might end up living with something we can't bear.'

Like 1984 for example.*

The allusion to medieval delusions is an interesting one. It kind of puts me in mind of Henry III and how similar he is to the Brown Gorgon. A few minor disagreements breeds a huge amount of suspicion, a civil war and a humiliating final chapter.

Of course, he's missing the point, it isn't about security, terrorism or even rights, it is about the desire to control us, because with these tools you can root out and silence those who haven't fell for it.

The irony is that they're ten years too late. There's no way in the world that the Tories will let this opportunity pass. The legislation will be put on the statute book, and then those that have done the donkey work will bray the loudest as they see their vile, divisive and repugnant machinery used against them in a campaign of terror against the Labour fold.

* There is a UK Libertarian Party campaign to send a copy of 1984 to all members of the house. Just to act as a warning, read about it here.

The One That Is Scared. . .

Very, very scared indeed.

I'm not so naive, I'm perfectly well aware that 'anti-terror' legislation won't always be used against those suspected of terrorism, we've seen it a few times where these powers have been used against individuals in ridiculous situations because their dog has shat in the park, or they've left their bin lid open or they've taken a picture of a police car.

Now Gordon has gone a step further by using anti-terror legislation against a whole country?

Bloody hell, prison overcrowding is bad enough as it is, but is there really room in Belmarsh for the whole of Iceland?

Of course we were no doubt told that this legislation would only be used in extreme circumstances and against, y'know, really bad people. OK we had a bit of a barney about cod, but let's face facts, that has to be the lamest 'war' in history. Iceland is hardly guilty of terrorism, a few bankers are guilty of being really stupid, but a number of British 'financial experts' are just of guilty of not ignoring the warning signs and getting our cash out, so why use this legislation to seize and/or freeze their assets?

Make no mistake, if ZNL have no hesitation in going after a whole country, they'll have no problem in going after you, for whatever reason they feel like.

It is often said that a government should be scared of its electorate, not the other way around, but I am very quietly shitting myself.

The One That Knows This Is Going To Happen Again And Again. . .

It is now silly season. Unfortunately this doesn't mean that I don't have to be in the office until October. This season means that we'll see plenty of stories like this over the next few weeks:

A passer-by was questioned under terrorism laws for taking a picture of a police car he thought was illegally parked.

Apparently the police officers considered that this act represented a 'security threat.'

God how I hate that phrase. Security reasons - the new mantra of totalitarianism. Are we honestly, truthfully, expected to believe that some guy taking a photo of a panda car is a threat to national security? We all know what they look like, they can be seen on the news, in the paper at any time. I have a colleague who, for reasons best known to himself, is considering making a reference book about police cars. Images of cop cars are not hard to come by.

Security threat? Give me a break. You've felt this guy's collar because he has dared to question what the police were doing parked in a bus lane. When people start being arrested for questioning the actions of the police, we are in deep, deep, deep trouble.

The mealy mouthed response of the Super is just as worrying. Why not just put your hands up and say 'The officers over reacted. I've spoken with them about it and we will try to avoid this in the future.' Because the thing is I'm sure that behind closed doors, the officers concerned were told to stop being so bloody stupid.

A number of my recent posts might suggest I am anti-police. This is not true. I work quite closely with the police and recognise that the vast, vast majority do a good job under almost impossible conditions and incompetent management. Managers and a few front-line officers would do well to remember the Peelian Principles.

Can anyone explain why we used to have a Police Force that served the community but now have a Police Service that serve nothing but the Party tractor production figures?

The One That Knew It Wasn't Just About Brown People. . .

Now, it isn't exactly 42 days, but it is a bloody good indicator, Al-Beeb (Kent Commissariat) are running this story tonight:

A police officer has been transferred from duties at a Channel crossing after a disabled child and his parents were detained under the Terrorism Act.

Julie Maynard, of Ware, Hertfordshire, was taking a day trip to Calais through the Channel Tunnel in Folkestone, Kent.

The detective constable accused Ms Maynard and her husband Leslie Coombs of trafficking her son Joshua, 12.

Now, I know a thing or two about child trafficking, and there are ways of broaching the subject and ways not to. This was a way not to.

Even if they were guilty of child trafficking, why in the name of fuckety-fucking-fuck was an arrest made under the terrorism act?

Still, it is good to see Kent Police taking some positive action, I just hope the DC is thoroughly ashamed of herself.

Watch yourself, just look the wrong way at the wrong copper (and no, not all of them, not even most of them) and it'll be 9 hours in the box for you. Very poor, this is not the action expected of what used be the most reputable police force (and not bloody service) in the world.

The one that is sat here, not moving a muscle.

I was struck by something as I walked my dog recently. Not five minute's walk from me is a very large green open space, it must be at least the size of five football pitches and is used constantly by dog walkers, joggers and students and kids playing football, frisbee, softball etc. In the lovely weather the other day it was heartwarming to see a bunch of twenty or so young teenagers playing football, they'd even gone to the trouble of making sure that each team were wearing matching shirts. It must have been a relief for these kids to be doing this rather than setting fire to old ladies and driving the local convenience store around the estate at breakneck speed.

What chilled me to the bone was the phrase I heard uttered by a passing pedestrian, an individual I recongnised as one of the local councillors; 'We'll have to put a stop to this,' he said to a colleague/crony as he pointed to the football match in progress, 'if one of them breaks a leg, they'll sue us for everything we've got.'

What a tragic viewpoint, and the saddest thing is, it's not the being sued that is the problem, it's the fear of being sued. One would hope that if one of the young lads broke a leg, and if he and his parents and their ambulance chaser sued, that the judge would sit there and declare that breaking a leg was an implied risk in this situation and that they should get out of his courtroom and stop wasting his time.

This fear now permeates every level of life. I work in a public sector organisation where tried and tested legislation is overruled by policy just in case anyone should complain. Never mind that any complaint would be overturned as it is covered by legislation, the fear of a complaint is such that all pretence of being fair and firm goes out of the window. There was an article on the news this morning about parents refusing to allow their progeny to walk down to the shops because it 'isn't safe'. What are the police doing? Everybody knows that the bushes at the end of the road are teeming with paedophiles, so why don't they go and nick them? I'm not going to bang on about that statistical difference between 'stranger danger' and family members and friends because we've all seen it hundreds of times before.

The danger is no greater now than it has ever been, it just seems greater because it makes good copy for the newspapers who have to print something, anything to shift papers as electronic media means any actual news they print is out of date by the time it hits the shelves.

Of course the people who make most profit out of this feeling of fear is the government. Fear of ecological catastrophe? We'll look after you by taxing you more to 'off-set' the damage. Fear of terrorists? We'll make sure we can lock people up on a whim for weeks on end. Fear of crime? We'll put up CCTV cameras so we can keep an eye on you, all of you, all day, or how about a national DNA database? Don't worry we can be trusted to look after your most personal information, that you'll have to give us, even though there's no suggestion you've actually done anything wrong. We'll also make you carry this little card, it'll help solve crime, prevent terrorism, stop benefit fraud, be more secure. How? Errrm, well, look, it just will OK? Honestly, it's not your place to question us, we tell you what to do, you don't tell us. Now just shut up and put that cross in that little box next to your Labour candidate. Labour - because we know what's best for you.

Ben Franklin said 'Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.' He's right we've neither. H&S and Security - the totalitarian mantra. I'm off to re-read 1984, I've got the feeling that Orwell is actually the re-incarnation of Nostradamus, surely he couldn't have just guessed what the future would look like?