July 07, 2005
Terrorist attack on London
An al-Qaeda affiliated group have apparently claimed responsibility for a co-ordinated series of four or more explosions this morning in London. It still isn’t clear how many people have been killed and injured.
BBC online coverage has so far been poor with many broken links to audio and video feed, but there is a surprisingly detailed page on Wikipedia, also some information on the Londonist.
UPDATE 17.00
Some figures are now being reported for dead and injuted. This will be the worst terrorist attack in British history, though (I hope) not as bad as Madrid in 2004.
Of the various ooficial statements that have been made around the world that of Bertrand Delanoë, the Mayor of Paris, caught my attention. He said, “Today, we’re all Londoners”.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005Londontransport_explosions
Posted by Simon Holledge at 02:02 PM | TrackBack
May 20, 2005
Taser stun guns for G8
Scottish police will be armed with Taser stun guns during the G8 summit. Could these potentially-lethal weapons be used against unarmed protesters?
Have the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS) read the Amnesty report on the misuse of these weapons (see below)?
news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=550602005
www.amnestyusa.org/countries/usa/document.do?id=1A01E91E134A327080256F190042408D
Posted by Simon Holledge at 01:06 PM | TrackBack
March 29, 2005
Surveillance is not the point!
Dan McDougall has an article in the Scotsman about a retired judge backing the use of intercept evidence in court “despite claims by human rights groups that such methods contravene civil liberties”. Readers are asked to vote on “should we give up civil liberties for increased security”.
This seems muddle-headed.
Surely it is the security services who don’t want intercept evidence used in court. They want terrorist suspects to be detained without trial.
Bodies like Liberty, the defenders of civil liberties, are against detention without trial and believe that intercept evidence should be used in court. Liberty have said “Allowing intercepted telephone calls to be used in evidence will facilitate criminal trials of terror suspects.” This is also my position. Surveillance is not the problem.
This makes nonsense of the Scotsman poll.
news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=330722005
www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/defend-fair-trial-rights.shtml
Posted by Simon Holledge at 11:21 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
March 01, 2005
Prevention of Terrorism Bill II
The Prevention of Terrorism Bill was narrowly passed in the Commons yesterday and sent to the Lords in the face of growing opposition and considerable confusion about government intentions (see also 26 February).
“The scope for miscarriages of justice is enormous,” said David Davis.
Liberty have a petition against the bill. They are calling for: ” Respect for precious British values of freedom, justice and the presumption of innocence in any new anti-terror laws.” Also, “Recognition that human rights must not, and need not, be sacrificed for effective security.”
They point out: “Allowing intercepted telephone calls to be used in evidence will facilitate criminal trials of terror suspects. People can be detained for limited periods whilst charges are brought. This way we need not derogate from hard-won human rights.”
www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/defend-fair-trial-rights.shtml
news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=225082005
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4306813.stm#
Posted by Simon Holledge at 09:34 AM | TrackBack
February 26, 2005
Prevention of Terrorism Bill debate I
‘They Work For You’ have the whole text of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill debate on 23 February. Some notable passages:
“I suppose that once one has shown contempt for liberty by voting against it in the Lobby, it becomes easier to do it a second time and after that, a third time… . They voted: first, to abolish trial by jury in less serious cases; secondly, to abolish trial by jury in more serious cases; thirdly, to approve an unlawful war; fourthly, to create a gulag at Belmarsh; and fifthly, to lock up innocent people in their homes. It is truly terrifying to imagine what those Members of Parliament will vote for next. I can describe all that only as new Labour’s descent into hell, which is not a place where I want to be… .” Brian Sedgemore (Hackney South & Shoreditch, Labour)
“Let us never forget that the greatest victory that terrorism can have is if it forces us to abandon the very principles of liberty, democracy and the right to justice which we are all seeking to defend against terrorism.” Chris Smith (Islington South & Finsbury, Labour)
“In a hotly contested field, the Bill is one of the worst Government measures that has been produced in my time in the House… . It is reminiscent of the actions of some tottering Belgian coalition Government of the early 1970s, using the threat of terror as an excuse to enact repressive emergency measures that are never removed from the statute book.” Boris Johnson (Henley, Conservative)
“No mature democracy has ever been overthrown by terrorism. The terrorist bosses know that as well as we do. Their aim is not to overthrow our system of government but to provoke responses from us that damage us in the eyes of the people whom they wish to impress. In the case of this country, one of the things that they want to do is get us to abandon our long-standing and honourable claim to be a society that rejects arbitrary imprisonment and rests instead on the demanding and constraining concepts of natural justice and the rule of law.” Frank Dobson (Holborn & St Pancras, Labour)
“If somebody is put into detention without trial by a Minister, we cannot avoid that person being described as a political prisoner.” Malcolm Bruce (Gordon, Liberal Democrat)
“It is almost certainly one of the worst pieces of legislation that any Government have attempted to put through this House for 200 years. It offends against the cardinal and root principle of our democracy—the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary. That principle is not a tributary of democracy, or a bit or part of it. It is what democracy is, and it is fundamental to our system, as it is to all systems of democracy that ultimately derive from revolutions of the people. The constitutional liberties in the US, France and this country are all based on that principle, which was first enunciated by Montesquieu and subsequently taken up by Paine and Jefferson. Their names will resound through the annals of political democracy and liberty when the names of those who are trying to take democracy away from us will be no more than dusty footnotes in the unpleasant history of this era of Parliament.” Robert Marshall-Andrews (Medway, Labour)
www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2005-02-23.333.0&m=1215#g365.0
Posted by Simon Holledge at 12:10 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
February 23, 2005
Detention without trial
Detention without trial has always been opposed in these islands. It has been the hallmark of totalitarian regimes. Habeas corpus, the right to trial is one of the cornerstones of our political system, dating back to the 12th century.
Now our authoritarian Labour government in London wants to have the power of indefinite detention without trial - in response to the threat of terrorism - to be used at the discretion of the Home Secretary, at a time when the country is not at war, and without any kind of time limit.
The ‘Prevention of Terrorism Bill’ passed its first reading tonight (309 votes for to 233 against) and will be discussed again next Monday before being rushed to the House of Lords. (There were 32 Labour rebels voting against the measure, but only one Scottish Labour MP, Tam Dalyell.)
The Lords may or may not succeed in delaying or amending the bill, but if it passes in its present form, it will mean that the government, rather than a law court, has the right to lock us up, albeit at home rather than in prison, although that could change.
This changes the fundamental relationship between the government and the citizen, and the implicit ‘contract’ which binds us together in a peaceful and tolerant society.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4285835.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4289349.stm
www.snp.org/index_hires.php?pageName=news/newsdetail.php?newsID=2835
www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk
Posted by Simon Holledge at 11:39 PM | TrackBack
January 12, 2005
British police worst?
News often makes sense when two or more reports on separate but related issues are put together. On the one hand we have a report from Civitas say that Britain has the worst police force in the developed world, and on the other a report that the police want to scale back their operations opting out of minor crimes, community problems etc.
In 2001, we had GBP 1500 worth of things stolen from our car when it was (theoretically) in a safe, secure area. The Newcastle police gave us a crime number and refused to investigate. We were outsiders, the company involved were local. For various reasons we first reported the crime through the Edinburgh police who attempted to send faxes to Newcastle that never arrived.
In contrast we soon noticed the alacrity and efficiency with which parking and speeding offenders were pursued and fined. I suppose this is a demonstration of the power of the profit motive, but it doesn’t indicate a good police force.
www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,2763,1382161,00.html?gusrc=rss
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4142869.stm
Posted by Simon Holledge at 12:08 AM
January 11, 2005
Data protection lunacy
It seems grumpy to talk about people having no common sense, but what else is one to make of reports like that in the Guardian about the removal of patients’ names from cards and boards because of Data Protection Act concerns? Which is more important, a high degree of privacy or going for the right operation?
This mentality is widespread. Last week the sports centre here refused to give me a fellow squash player’s telephone number, despite the fact we were both involved in efforts to save our local courts. In Edinburgh, I have also been denied photocopying - in one of those antiquated shops where they insist on doing in for you - both of documents with my name on (potential forgery?), and of printed text bearing my name as author (infringement by me of my own copyright?).
www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,11381,1383048,00.html?gusrc=rss
Posted by Simon Holledge at 09:27 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
November 28, 2004
Scotland's prison population
Kenny MacAskill (SNP) on imprisonment:
“Society must be protected from dangerous offenders. However, in Scotland far too many people are in prison for minor offences and fine defaults. Locking them up neither addresses reform or rehabilitation nor is it cost effective. It costs the taxpayer more than 30,000 pounds per annum. Community based disposals for minor offences are not simply better but cheaper.”
Why is it so difficult to arrange community service sentences in Scotland? Surely this is an area where we have to learn from other countries that have a more advanced system of justice.
www.snp.org/index_hires.php?pageName=news/newsdetail.php?newsID=2638