After Britain partially withdrew forces from southern Iraq in September, the White House slandered its “closest ally,” claiming “British forces have performed poorly in Basra” and suggested “it’s best that they leave.”The White House should take notice of what has happened in Basra as British troops have left. According to Maj. Gen. Graham Binns, commander of British forces in Basra, the presence of British troops instigated violence. Now, violence has reportedly dropped to one-tenth that of earlier levels:
The presence of British forces in downtown Basra, Iraq’s second-largest city, was the single largest instigator of violence, Maj. Gen. Graham Binns told reporters Thursday on a visit to Baghdad’s Green Zone.
“We thought, ‘If 90 percent of the violence is directed at us, what would happen if we stepped back?,’” Binns said.
Sectarian tensions in Basra, a predominantly Shiite city, are not as high in other parts of Iraq, but “it has seen major fighting between insurgents and coalition troops.” British Defense Secretary Des Browne observed last month:
The people of that city are no longer subject to the significant level of violence that was directed against the British forces and our allies.
In April, 12 British troops were killed in Iraq in contrast to just 1 in October. Furthermore, “British officials expected a spike in such ‘intra-militia violence’ after they pulled back from the city’s center, and were surprised to find none,” Binns said.
When announcing a further withdrawal in early October, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Basra was “calmer” since British forces handed over their base in early September. “Indeed, in the last month, there have been five indirect fire attacks on Basra Air Station compared with 87 in July,” he observed.
While the region still sees ongoing volatility, the lesson learned by the British — that they provoked violence instead of quelling it — is one that can be applied to the U.S. presence in Iraq as well.
Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
understanding government
We were warned:
“The democracy will cease to exist
when you take away from those who are willing to work
and give to those who would not.”
“Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies;
The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity
is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”
“Do good to your friends to keep them,
to your enemies to win them.”
“The less we use our power, the greater it will be.”
“Leave no authority existing
not responsible to the people.”
“Experience hath shown that
even under the best forms of government,
those entrusted with power have,
in time, and by slow operations,
perverted it into tyranny.”
“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield
and government to gain ground.”
"To take a single step beyond the boundaries
thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress,
is to take possession of a boundless field of power,
no longer susceptible of any definition."
“One of the qualities of liberty is that
As long as it is being striven after, it goes on expanding.
The man who stands in the midst of the struggle and says, ‘I have it,’
Merely shows by doing so that he has just lost it.”
“I am not concerned that you have fallen;
I am concerned that you
rise.
"In matters of style, swim with the current;
in matters of principle,
stand like a rock.”
“The democracy will cease to exist
when you take away from those who are willing to work
and give to those who would not.”
“Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies;
The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity
is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”
“Do good to your friends to keep them,
to your enemies to win them.”
“The less we use our power, the greater it will be.”
“Leave no authority existing
not responsible to the people.”
“Experience hath shown that
even under the best forms of government,
those entrusted with power have,
in time, and by slow operations,
perverted it into tyranny.”
“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield
and government to gain ground.”
"To take a single step beyond the boundaries
thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress,
is to take possession of a boundless field of power,
no longer susceptible of any definition."
“One of the qualities of liberty is that
As long as it is being striven after, it goes on expanding.
The man who stands in the midst of the struggle and says, ‘I have it,’
Merely shows by doing so that he has just lost it.”
“I am not concerned that you have fallen;
I am concerned that you
rise.
"In matters of style, swim with the current;
in matters of principle,
stand like a rock.”
why is brown antagonising a nation that has not threatened us
2.3 million US Soldiers vs 11.7 million Iranian Soldiers = DRAFT
The Truth Will Set You Free | November 12, 2007
Some sobering advice from a fellow blogger at reigngame.com:
Alright, I know 90% of you guys follow politics so you've undoubtably read and/or heard about the current Iran situation. I'd like to briefly talk about the figurative war with Iran. For the sake of discussion, let's begin with the questionably optimistic assumption that no major country would forcefully oppose (economically or militarily) full-scale US military operations in Iran. Nevermind Iran's 12% imports with Germany and 10% imports with China - I'm sure Germany and China's economies don't want Iran's money anyway, right? Nevermind the fact that Iran exports 2,836,000 barrels of oil per day to various nations that depend on that oil.
We can all just ride bikes until the 2 month war is over! As to the Iranians themselves, I'm sure they're just dying (no pun intended) to be invaded, er, `liberated` by Americans, considering the `horrid` 70% approval rating of Ahmadinejad and the `devastating` $8,700 gross domestic product per capita (8.6% better than China). I'm sure we'll be “welcomed in the streets” after we “shock and awe” all important looking buildings to Jahannum and back.
With a little help from the boys at GFP, I did some exploring into the military systems of America and Iran and what I found was alarming . . .
2,369,239 US Soldiers vs 11,770,000 Iranian Soldiers = DRAFT
The United States of America has 2.37 million soldiers capable of combat and available for mobilization. Let's compare with little ol' Iran! Iran has THE MOST military personnel available for combat in the entire world. In fact, Iran has more combat-ready military personnel than China and Russia combined. 11.7 million guerillas — Talk about hell. The bottom line is, America can't even handle Iraq. At one point, we thought we would rush in, smite some nubs with dirks and bubble hearth back home in time for American Idol. Not quite. And with Iran, reality is going to hurt a lot more.
America is War Stomping on Artificial Ice Above the Pit of Sparta
At the risk of loosing all my credibility, allow my concern to manifest itself in a less than mature way: Our economy is &%$#ed. We have a -862,300,000,000 dollar cash balance. That puts us LAST in the world for cash balance of our own currency. This is what people are talking about when they say deficit. But this is more than a deficit; this is an abandonment of the dollar. The conclusion? Changes. And not the type of changes 2Pac wanted. Big changes that will crash into the hull of the United States.
Nerf Executive Branch
America is tipping back way too far in her easy chair — something is about to happen. This upcoming 2008 election is extremely pivotal. I'm not going to name any candidates because this isn't that type of article. But let the point of this entire post clear: If you think times are boring, think again. If you think the future is predictable, think again. My advice to everyone who reads this is to be thoughtful, be skeptical, be wise. Learn, test what you learn and share it. The future of your family tree is in the balance.
I leave you with a quote:
People skew facts to paint pictures they want to paint, and people open their minds to pictures they want to see.
You must trust only the wisdom that is yours, and seek truth at the cost of even life itself.
May the force be with you,
Ty (Reign Developer)
Too bad, it's not as simple as how many soldiers each side has.
The first thing that comes to mind is the scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark, where Indiana Jones is confronted by an angry Arab dressed in black brandishing an enormous, razor sharp sword.Jones takes one look at the menacing figure then whips out a gun and shoots him dead.End of discussion.
I know it won't be that simple, but the US does have nukes and presumably so does israel and they're just crazy and barbaric enough to use them.
Alex Jones' terrifying new film End Game: Blueprint For Global Enslavement explores the history of eugenics and answers why the elite are so obsessed with thinning the human population. Click here to order the DVD or subscribe to prison planet.tv and watch the documentary in high quality online streaming format.
The Truth Will Set You Free | November 12, 2007
Some sobering advice from a fellow blogger at reigngame.com:
Alright, I know 90% of you guys follow politics so you've undoubtably read and/or heard about the current Iran situation. I'd like to briefly talk about the figurative war with Iran. For the sake of discussion, let's begin with the questionably optimistic assumption that no major country would forcefully oppose (economically or militarily) full-scale US military operations in Iran. Nevermind Iran's 12% imports with Germany and 10% imports with China - I'm sure Germany and China's economies don't want Iran's money anyway, right? Nevermind the fact that Iran exports 2,836,000 barrels of oil per day to various nations that depend on that oil.
We can all just ride bikes until the 2 month war is over! As to the Iranians themselves, I'm sure they're just dying (no pun intended) to be invaded, er, `liberated` by Americans, considering the `horrid` 70% approval rating of Ahmadinejad and the `devastating` $8,700 gross domestic product per capita (8.6% better than China). I'm sure we'll be “welcomed in the streets” after we “shock and awe” all important looking buildings to Jahannum and back.
With a little help from the boys at GFP, I did some exploring into the military systems of America and Iran and what I found was alarming . . .
2,369,239 US Soldiers vs 11,770,000 Iranian Soldiers = DRAFT
The United States of America has 2.37 million soldiers capable of combat and available for mobilization. Let's compare with little ol' Iran! Iran has THE MOST military personnel available for combat in the entire world. In fact, Iran has more combat-ready military personnel than China and Russia combined. 11.7 million guerillas — Talk about hell. The bottom line is, America can't even handle Iraq. At one point, we thought we would rush in, smite some nubs with dirks and bubble hearth back home in time for American Idol. Not quite. And with Iran, reality is going to hurt a lot more.
America is War Stomping on Artificial Ice Above the Pit of Sparta
At the risk of loosing all my credibility, allow my concern to manifest itself in a less than mature way: Our economy is &%$#ed. We have a -862,300,000,000 dollar cash balance. That puts us LAST in the world for cash balance of our own currency. This is what people are talking about when they say deficit. But this is more than a deficit; this is an abandonment of the dollar. The conclusion? Changes. And not the type of changes 2Pac wanted. Big changes that will crash into the hull of the United States.
Nerf Executive Branch
America is tipping back way too far in her easy chair — something is about to happen. This upcoming 2008 election is extremely pivotal. I'm not going to name any candidates because this isn't that type of article. But let the point of this entire post clear: If you think times are boring, think again. If you think the future is predictable, think again. My advice to everyone who reads this is to be thoughtful, be skeptical, be wise. Learn, test what you learn and share it. The future of your family tree is in the balance.
I leave you with a quote:
People skew facts to paint pictures they want to paint, and people open their minds to pictures they want to see.
You must trust only the wisdom that is yours, and seek truth at the cost of even life itself.
May the force be with you,
Ty (Reign Developer)
Too bad, it's not as simple as how many soldiers each side has.
The first thing that comes to mind is the scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark, where Indiana Jones is confronted by an angry Arab dressed in black brandishing an enormous, razor sharp sword.Jones takes one look at the menacing figure then whips out a gun and shoots him dead.End of discussion.
I know it won't be that simple, but the US does have nukes and presumably so does israel and they're just crazy and barbaric enough to use them.
Alex Jones' terrifying new film End Game: Blueprint For Global Enslavement explores the history of eugenics and answers why the elite are so obsessed with thinning the human population. Click here to order the DVD or subscribe to prison planet.tv and watch the documentary in high quality online streaming format.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
guilt by silence this government is to make you guilty by silence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2207130,00.html
WSWS : News & Analysis : Europe : Britain
Britain: Queen’s Speech signals attack on civil liberties
By Paul Bond
14 November 2007
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
When Gordon Brown became Prime Minister five months ago, he sought to distance himself from the unpopularity of his predecessor Tony Blair by pledging “a new kind of politics.” On counter-terrorism legislation, he talked of a consultation period of “good will” rather than an immediate rush to pursue Blair’s repressive legislative agenda. Sections of the liberal establishment gave credence to Brown’s claims that he would “strengthen our liberties,” even though Home Secretary Jacqui Smith made it clear that new anti-terror legislation would be presented later in the year.
The first Queen’s Speech of Brown’s premiership last week made clear his government’s intent to deepen the assault on democratic rights and civil liberties. The Queen’s Speech presents the legislation a government will debate and seek to bring forward over the forthcoming parliamentary session.
Among the bills proposed by Brown is anti-terror legislation, centring on two main proposals. The first is to extend the period terror suspects can be detained without charge. The second is to extend the right to question suspects after they have been charged.
At present, suspects can be detained without charge for 28 days, longer than in any other major European country. In 1997, when Labour came to power, suspects could be detained for just 4 days. Home Office ministers have confirmed that their preferred option would be to extend the period to 56 days.
Two years ago, Blair lost a vote to extend the period of detention without charge from 14 to 90 days. This was when the limit was raised to 28 days. Smith is anxious not to repeat the experience of having government bills amended in this way. She therefore refused to state what the government’s preferred extension period would be when challenged on the BBC’s “Today” radio programme, and told the House of Commons that she was “seeking to gain consensus.”
The Conservatives have claimed to oppose this extension. But they do not oppose extending detention without charge. Their preferred method would be the use of the Civil Contingencies Act, which would authorise an additional 30 days’ detention on top of the 28 provided by counter-terrorism legislation.
The civil liberties group Liberty, which opposed the 90-day limit and opposes the current proposed extension, also favours use of existing legislation. It argues in favour of removing restrictions on using wiretap evidence in court, and also agrees with the suggestion that suspects should be arrested for minor charges and then interviewed further as new evidence emerges.
Liberty’s Shami Chakrabarti has been among those most willing to see the supposedly positive aspects of Brown’s attitude to civil liberties. Shortly before the Queen’s Speech, she praised the government’s willingness “to consult widely, to adopt a listening tone and a less combative tone, in relation to anti-terror laws.” She expressed concern that Brown himself might be compromised by extending detention: “All this will matter little if effective internment is returned to this country.”
The police have been campaigning for an extension. The Association of Chief Police Officers stated that they could envisage circumstances in which a 28-day limit could be insufficient. They cite as justification the increasing complexity and scale of terrorism.
That this is a smokescreen can be seen from the number of recent convictions for terrorist offences that have not required 28 days of detention. In July, Brown claimed that six suspects had been held for 27 or 28 days, implying that the police were at their time limits. But commentators have noted that the police will simply use the whole time limit available to them, regardless of how long that is.
The proposals have caused some anxiety among Labour Members of Parliament who would have to justify the extension to a sceptical and opposed electorate. Andrew Dismore, of the joint parliamentary human rights committee, said that Smith had not yet made a case for the extension, and that there was no evidence of the inadequacy of the present legislation. The same stance was taken by David Winnick, who said that if the detention period was to be extended, they must have “compelling evidence that it’s absolutely essential.”
The extension of detention has been the main focus of media attention. The other proposal, to continue questioning after charging, reveals even more clearly the wider attacks on civil liberties of the Brown government. The proposal has been advanced by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats as an alternative to detention without charge. The Tories claim that it was one of their policies originally.
Smith told the BBC that the proposal would effectively continue the police caution after charges had been brought. She said she saw it as “an important condition” that would provide prosecutors with “more of the tools they need” to counter terrorism.
Under the proposals, juries could be instructed to view negatively a suspect’s refusal to cooperate after being charged. Barristers have noted that after charge there is little to be gained by a suspect in commenting further. As they are already charged, their next recourse will be to explain before a jury. Some terrorist cases have taken years to come to trial.
Instructing a jury to draw negative conclusions from failure to cooperate with police efforts to build a prosecution case over a lengthy period is clearly a further attack on the presumption of innocence that is the basis for English law. Smith also suggested on the “Today” programme that such a measure might be applied more widely than just terror cases.
Liberty has been arguing for such a measure in terrorism cases, “provided that the initial charge is legitimate and there is no judicial oversight,” thus allowing “for a charge to be replaced with a more appropriate offence at a later stage.” Advocating what amounts to a legal sleight-of-hand—someone could legitimately be held on a host of lesser offences—shows that the group is in fact acting as an adviser to the government in how best to get away with its attacks on civil liberties.
The government’s legislative programme was boosted by statements from the head of the secret service MI5 the day before it was revealed. Jonathan Evans, giving his first speech the day before the legislative programme was unveiled, claimed that at least 2,000 people are currently believed to pose a threat to national security.
Whipping up an atmosphere of right-wing hysteria to justify his appeals for further resources, he spoke of Al Qaeda targeting young teenagers in particular.
Writing in the Guardian, Simon Jenkins pondered, “Why has General Musharraf not telephoned Gordon Brown to express his ‘deep concern’ over yesterday’s Queen’s speech? Or Vladimir Putin or Mahmoud Ahmedinejad?
“Here is a government unpopular and in trouble over terrorism. Its civil rights lawyers are up in arms. Its leader postpones a general election and summarily arrests anyone he sees as a danger to his state. He butters up the military by promising them more nuclear weapons. He announces changes to the constitution without consultation, imposes central rule over dissident local districts and extends imprisonment without trial. To soften up the public, he even gets his head of security to make a blood-curdling speech depicting every child as a potential suicide bomber.”
Describing Evans’s remarks as “pure Musharraf,” he warned that “Scaremongering by ministers, the police and security officials has bordered on the hysterical.”
But Evans was clearly appealing to the government when he said, “Every decision by the security service to investigate someone entails a decision not to investigate someone else.” The Queen’s Speech has indicated that the Brown government will listen and respond favourably to any appeal to further undermine democratic rights.
See Also:
British government accessing telephone records
[18 October 2007]
Police ban London antiwar march
[6 October 2007]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1998-2007
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved
November 7, 2007
Legal reform 'damages presumption of innocence'
(Stephen Hird/Reuters)
Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, said that terror and non-terror suspects could be questioned by police after they have been charged
Frances Gibb, legal editor of The Times, and Jack Malvern
Police could be given the power to question suspects after they have been charged not only for terrorism but for a range of crimes, the Home Secretary announced this morning.
Lawyers reacted with alarm, warning that to allow crime suspects to be questioned after charge could be the "thin end of the wedge", and undermine the presumption of innocence.
Jacqui Smith revealed that the change to the English legal system was being mooted during an interview on BBC Radio 4's Today programme. She said that post-charge questioning, which has been mooted for terror charges as an alternative to extending the period suspects can be held without charge, could also be used "more widely" for other, unspecified crimes.
"Well, we're looking actually, as part of our review of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, at whether or not it is more widely appropriate, so it's something that we're considering more widely on a slightly slower timescale."
Related Links
More powers for security forces
Flexible working hours for millions
The Bills: what's on the way
She added that post-charge questioning was not "a panacea in itself, but it is an important condition for a bill that we believe will provide for investigators and for prosecutors more of the tools that they need to help them to counter the serious threat from terrorism".
Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, police can already question suspects after charge, but no adverse inferences can be drawn from a suspect's refusal to answer questions.
Under the new system juries would allowed to draw a negative conclusion if a suspect stayed silent.
The Law Society said that extending the measure to other crimes would carry the risk of police using "repeated and oppressive" questioning to build a case where there was little evidence.
Robert Brown, a leading criminal solicitor with the London law firm Corker Binning, said: "This could be the thin end of the wedge. The problem with allowing the police to question a suspect and have adverse inferences drawn from any silence, which is permitted at present pre-charge, is that it fundamentally undermines the presumption of innocence.
"If you start to say that silence helps establish guilt, you are moving away from the need for the prosecution to prove its case."
The idea of allowing police to question suspects post-charge was first suggested as a compromise by lawyers who were opposed to extending the time terror suspects could be held. The measure was seen as an alternative to extended detention limits, not as an additional weapon in the police's armoury.
Police had argued that within 28 days they may not be able to recover all the evidence - for instance, that encrypted in a computer - and that was why they needed a longer period of detention.
Page 1 of 2
Next Page
Have your say
Isn't this in reality a move to a continental judicial system required by the EU?
fnusnuank, Gen , Switz
As a defence solictor Mr Brown should know that silence does not establish guilt, neither on it's own can a defendant's scilence secure a conviction. Silence to police questioning is only relevant if the defendant mention in his trial something he could have said in his interview.
Uche George, London, England
WSWS : News & Analysis : Europe : Britain
Britain: Queen’s Speech signals attack on civil liberties
By Paul Bond
14 November 2007
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
When Gordon Brown became Prime Minister five months ago, he sought to distance himself from the unpopularity of his predecessor Tony Blair by pledging “a new kind of politics.” On counter-terrorism legislation, he talked of a consultation period of “good will” rather than an immediate rush to pursue Blair’s repressive legislative agenda. Sections of the liberal establishment gave credence to Brown’s claims that he would “strengthen our liberties,” even though Home Secretary Jacqui Smith made it clear that new anti-terror legislation would be presented later in the year.
The first Queen’s Speech of Brown’s premiership last week made clear his government’s intent to deepen the assault on democratic rights and civil liberties. The Queen’s Speech presents the legislation a government will debate and seek to bring forward over the forthcoming parliamentary session.
Among the bills proposed by Brown is anti-terror legislation, centring on two main proposals. The first is to extend the period terror suspects can be detained without charge. The second is to extend the right to question suspects after they have been charged.
At present, suspects can be detained without charge for 28 days, longer than in any other major European country. In 1997, when Labour came to power, suspects could be detained for just 4 days. Home Office ministers have confirmed that their preferred option would be to extend the period to 56 days.
Two years ago, Blair lost a vote to extend the period of detention without charge from 14 to 90 days. This was when the limit was raised to 28 days. Smith is anxious not to repeat the experience of having government bills amended in this way. She therefore refused to state what the government’s preferred extension period would be when challenged on the BBC’s “Today” radio programme, and told the House of Commons that she was “seeking to gain consensus.”
The Conservatives have claimed to oppose this extension. But they do not oppose extending detention without charge. Their preferred method would be the use of the Civil Contingencies Act, which would authorise an additional 30 days’ detention on top of the 28 provided by counter-terrorism legislation.
The civil liberties group Liberty, which opposed the 90-day limit and opposes the current proposed extension, also favours use of existing legislation. It argues in favour of removing restrictions on using wiretap evidence in court, and also agrees with the suggestion that suspects should be arrested for minor charges and then interviewed further as new evidence emerges.
Liberty’s Shami Chakrabarti has been among those most willing to see the supposedly positive aspects of Brown’s attitude to civil liberties. Shortly before the Queen’s Speech, she praised the government’s willingness “to consult widely, to adopt a listening tone and a less combative tone, in relation to anti-terror laws.” She expressed concern that Brown himself might be compromised by extending detention: “All this will matter little if effective internment is returned to this country.”
The police have been campaigning for an extension. The Association of Chief Police Officers stated that they could envisage circumstances in which a 28-day limit could be insufficient. They cite as justification the increasing complexity and scale of terrorism.
That this is a smokescreen can be seen from the number of recent convictions for terrorist offences that have not required 28 days of detention. In July, Brown claimed that six suspects had been held for 27 or 28 days, implying that the police were at their time limits. But commentators have noted that the police will simply use the whole time limit available to them, regardless of how long that is.
The proposals have caused some anxiety among Labour Members of Parliament who would have to justify the extension to a sceptical and opposed electorate. Andrew Dismore, of the joint parliamentary human rights committee, said that Smith had not yet made a case for the extension, and that there was no evidence of the inadequacy of the present legislation. The same stance was taken by David Winnick, who said that if the detention period was to be extended, they must have “compelling evidence that it’s absolutely essential.”
The extension of detention has been the main focus of media attention. The other proposal, to continue questioning after charging, reveals even more clearly the wider attacks on civil liberties of the Brown government. The proposal has been advanced by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats as an alternative to detention without charge. The Tories claim that it was one of their policies originally.
Smith told the BBC that the proposal would effectively continue the police caution after charges had been brought. She said she saw it as “an important condition” that would provide prosecutors with “more of the tools they need” to counter terrorism.
Under the proposals, juries could be instructed to view negatively a suspect’s refusal to cooperate after being charged. Barristers have noted that after charge there is little to be gained by a suspect in commenting further. As they are already charged, their next recourse will be to explain before a jury. Some terrorist cases have taken years to come to trial.
Instructing a jury to draw negative conclusions from failure to cooperate with police efforts to build a prosecution case over a lengthy period is clearly a further attack on the presumption of innocence that is the basis for English law. Smith also suggested on the “Today” programme that such a measure might be applied more widely than just terror cases.
Liberty has been arguing for such a measure in terrorism cases, “provided that the initial charge is legitimate and there is no judicial oversight,” thus allowing “for a charge to be replaced with a more appropriate offence at a later stage.” Advocating what amounts to a legal sleight-of-hand—someone could legitimately be held on a host of lesser offences—shows that the group is in fact acting as an adviser to the government in how best to get away with its attacks on civil liberties.
The government’s legislative programme was boosted by statements from the head of the secret service MI5 the day before it was revealed. Jonathan Evans, giving his first speech the day before the legislative programme was unveiled, claimed that at least 2,000 people are currently believed to pose a threat to national security.
Whipping up an atmosphere of right-wing hysteria to justify his appeals for further resources, he spoke of Al Qaeda targeting young teenagers in particular.
Writing in the Guardian, Simon Jenkins pondered, “Why has General Musharraf not telephoned Gordon Brown to express his ‘deep concern’ over yesterday’s Queen’s speech? Or Vladimir Putin or Mahmoud Ahmedinejad?
“Here is a government unpopular and in trouble over terrorism. Its civil rights lawyers are up in arms. Its leader postpones a general election and summarily arrests anyone he sees as a danger to his state. He butters up the military by promising them more nuclear weapons. He announces changes to the constitution without consultation, imposes central rule over dissident local districts and extends imprisonment without trial. To soften up the public, he even gets his head of security to make a blood-curdling speech depicting every child as a potential suicide bomber.”
Describing Evans’s remarks as “pure Musharraf,” he warned that “Scaremongering by ministers, the police and security officials has bordered on the hysterical.”
But Evans was clearly appealing to the government when he said, “Every decision by the security service to investigate someone entails a decision not to investigate someone else.” The Queen’s Speech has indicated that the Brown government will listen and respond favourably to any appeal to further undermine democratic rights.
See Also:
British government accessing telephone records
[18 October 2007]
Police ban London antiwar march
[6 October 2007]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1998-2007
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved
November 7, 2007
Legal reform 'damages presumption of innocence'
(Stephen Hird/Reuters)
Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, said that terror and non-terror suspects could be questioned by police after they have been charged
Frances Gibb, legal editor of The Times, and Jack Malvern
Police could be given the power to question suspects after they have been charged not only for terrorism but for a range of crimes, the Home Secretary announced this morning.
Lawyers reacted with alarm, warning that to allow crime suspects to be questioned after charge could be the "thin end of the wedge", and undermine the presumption of innocence.
Jacqui Smith revealed that the change to the English legal system was being mooted during an interview on BBC Radio 4's Today programme. She said that post-charge questioning, which has been mooted for terror charges as an alternative to extending the period suspects can be held without charge, could also be used "more widely" for other, unspecified crimes.
"Well, we're looking actually, as part of our review of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, at whether or not it is more widely appropriate, so it's something that we're considering more widely on a slightly slower timescale."
Related Links
More powers for security forces
Flexible working hours for millions
The Bills: what's on the way
She added that post-charge questioning was not "a panacea in itself, but it is an important condition for a bill that we believe will provide for investigators and for prosecutors more of the tools that they need to help them to counter the serious threat from terrorism".
Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, police can already question suspects after charge, but no adverse inferences can be drawn from a suspect's refusal to answer questions.
Under the new system juries would allowed to draw a negative conclusion if a suspect stayed silent.
The Law Society said that extending the measure to other crimes would carry the risk of police using "repeated and oppressive" questioning to build a case where there was little evidence.
Robert Brown, a leading criminal solicitor with the London law firm Corker Binning, said: "This could be the thin end of the wedge. The problem with allowing the police to question a suspect and have adverse inferences drawn from any silence, which is permitted at present pre-charge, is that it fundamentally undermines the presumption of innocence.
"If you start to say that silence helps establish guilt, you are moving away from the need for the prosecution to prove its case."
The idea of allowing police to question suspects post-charge was first suggested as a compromise by lawyers who were opposed to extending the time terror suspects could be held. The measure was seen as an alternative to extended detention limits, not as an additional weapon in the police's armoury.
Police had argued that within 28 days they may not be able to recover all the evidence - for instance, that encrypted in a computer - and that was why they needed a longer period of detention.
Page 1 of 2
Next Page
Have your say
Isn't this in reality a move to a continental judicial system required by the EU?
fnusnuank, Gen , Switz
As a defence solictor Mr Brown should know that silence does not establish guilt, neither on it's own can a defendant's scilence secure a conviction. Silence to police questioning is only relevant if the defendant mention in his trial something he could have said in his interview.
Uche George, London, England
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Ron Paul Is Money
Republican Raises Stunning $3 Million Online in Less Than 24 Hours
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Tex., raised a stunning $3 million in less than 24 hours online. (ABC News Illustration) By Z. BYRON WOLF
Nov. 5, 2007
Font Size
Share Mark it down: A landmark moment entered the annals of political fundraising Nov. 5, 2007.
Full Coverage
VOTE 2008: Who is Your Candidate?If Texas Republican Ron Paul's Web site fundraising meter is to be believed, the Libertarian candidate, who has lagged in the polls but raised as much money as top-tier candidates, passed $3 million in online fundraising in less than 24 hours.
Paul's Haul May Set Online Record
It was a big deal back in 2000 when Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., raised $1 million online in the 24 hours after his upset victory over then-Gov. George W. Bush in the New Hampshire primary.
McCain's impressive take was seen as the birth of online fundraising -- a moment when online donors gained considerable respect.
Paul raised just over $5 million in the most recent fundraising quarter, which ended September 30. The campaign has set an official goal of raising $12 million between Oct.1 and the end of 2007.
As of midnight Sunday, Nov. 4, the Paul campaign claimed to have raised $2.77 million.
Monday's drive was coordinated by an independent Web site but received the tacit endorsement of Paul on the stump this week.
Blog
BLOGS: POLITICAL RADARHe told supporters at a rally in Columbia, S.C., that the mainstream media is more likely to pay attention if he raises more money. And that attention will lead to more mainstream voters hearing his message.
Watch video of Paul on the stump from ABC News on the campaign trail in South Carolina
Supporters Remember Nov. 5
It's not unusual for campaigns to attach a slogan to a one-day, one-event or one-week fundraising push.
Video
Must See Political MomentsSen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., have dined with donating supporters; Elizabeth Edwards, wife of former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, encouraged donations for her husband's birthday.
Earlier this year, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., got his hand slapped by Major League Baseball for offering to raffle off World Series tickets to a lucky donor.
But leave it to Ron Paul's devoted legions to win the originality contest this year.
"Remember, Remember, the fifth of November," cries the call for cash.
The catchy slogan comes from a nursery rhyme about Guy Fawkes, the 17th-century crusader for Catholics rights caught in the basement of parliament with 36 barrels of gunpowder. He failed in his mission to blow the place up.
ABC News tracked down Trevor Lyman, the man behind the Web site that coordinated Paul's one-day money bomb on his cell phone in line at a Miami Starbucks, where the whir of the barista making his lunchtime latte could be heard in the background.
Lyman, 37, is not your average political fundraiser.
His day job is running a music promotion Web site, but he spends his free time at the helm of the grassroots Web site that conspired in online chat forums and meetup groups to send a fundraising bomb in support of Paul.
But Lyman, who has never worked for a campaign before -- and still doesn't, technically -- describes himself as "mostly apathetic" when it comes to politics, started supporting Paul back when the congressman was just exploring a presidential run.
Full Coverage
Giuliani's Favorite Film? Find Out Here!He started a Web site devoted to Paul videos, the tagline for which is "Televising the Revolution."
The first video featured when we visited showed surfers how to use holiday lights to create and illuminated "Ron Paul Revolution" yard decoration.
Reach of the 'Revolution'
Lyman launched his most recent site only on Oct. 18, and he is hoping to move back to New Hampshire soon, not to work on the campaign, just because he went to college there and said it would be a better place than Miami to raise a family.
Asked if it is appropriate to invoke a nursery rhyme about a man who tried to blow up parliament in the 17th-century as a fundraising tool, Lyman said, "Some people want to go that way. We're not going in any way violent."
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=3822989&page=2
Friday, November 2, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Monday, October 29, 2007
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20071029/tuk-police-not-above-law-jurors-told-6323e80_1.html
Yahoo! My Yahoo Mail Search:
Welcome, jlerollin
[Sign Out, My Account] News Home - Help
NavigationPrimary NavigationHomeUKWorldPoliticsBusinessSportTechnologyScienceHealthEntertainmentOddly EnoughSecondary NavigationFull CoverageVideoMost PopularRoyal familyMessage BoardsSearchSearch: in All News Yahoo! News Only News Photos
Police not above law, jurors told
Press Assoc. - Monday, October 29 12:24 pmThe police are not "above the law", a judge told jurors trying the Met over events leading to the shooting of innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes.
(Advertisement)
Mr Justice Henriques told the Old Bailey jury to put aside any feelings of sympathy either towards the family of Mr de Menezes or individual police officers.
He said in deciding their verdict they should not be concerned with its effect on the future of policing but focus squarely on the events of July 22 2005.
It is alleged that a "catastrophic" series of errors by the Metropolitan Police led to the death of Mr de Menezes, who was 27.
He was gunned down by police firearms officers at Stockwell Tube station after being mistaken for terrorist Hussain Osman.
The force denies a single charge under health and safety legislation.
Summing up the case on Monday the judge told an Old Bailey jury: "You are not in any way concerned with the future or the effect of this prosecution.
"To suggest that it is wrong to prosecute the police for an alleged offence under the Health and Safety at Work Act is to submit that the police are above the law.
"It applies to them as it applies to any other employer. They are accountable."
The judge added: "There is no room here for any verdict based on sympathy either for the Menezes family or for the predicament of any police officer. Calm and accurate analysis of the evidence and a verdict based on reason and logic is what is called for."
Email StoryIM StoryPrintable ViewBlog ThisPost a Comment
Yahoo! My Yahoo Mail Search:
Welcome, jlerollin
[Sign Out, My Account] News Home - Help
NavigationPrimary NavigationHomeUKWorldPoliticsBusinessSportTechnologyScienceHealthEntertainmentOddly EnoughSecondary NavigationFull CoverageVideoMost PopularRoyal familyMessage BoardsSearchSearch: in All News Yahoo! News Only News Photos
Police not above law, jurors told
Press Assoc. - Monday, October 29 12:24 pmThe police are not "above the law", a judge told jurors trying the Met over events leading to the shooting of innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes.
(Advertisement)
Mr Justice Henriques told the Old Bailey jury to put aside any feelings of sympathy either towards the family of Mr de Menezes or individual police officers.
He said in deciding their verdict they should not be concerned with its effect on the future of policing but focus squarely on the events of July 22 2005.
It is alleged that a "catastrophic" series of errors by the Metropolitan Police led to the death of Mr de Menezes, who was 27.
He was gunned down by police firearms officers at Stockwell Tube station after being mistaken for terrorist Hussain Osman.
The force denies a single charge under health and safety legislation.
Summing up the case on Monday the judge told an Old Bailey jury: "You are not in any way concerned with the future or the effect of this prosecution.
"To suggest that it is wrong to prosecute the police for an alleged offence under the Health and Safety at Work Act is to submit that the police are above the law.
"It applies to them as it applies to any other employer. They are accountable."
The judge added: "There is no room here for any verdict based on sympathy either for the Menezes family or for the predicament of any police officer. Calm and accurate analysis of the evidence and a verdict based on reason and logic is what is called for."
Email StoryIM StoryPrintable ViewBlog ThisPost a Comment
Friday, October 26, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20071025/tuk-brown-promises-new-civil-liberties-6323e80_1.html
we will see
he said he would remove the ban 100 days into his control he hasnt
his government is trying to get us locked up without charge for longer than a month!!!!
suggested idefinitely indefinitely
tried 90 days
and they will keep on trying to wear us down and say ok you can lock us up without charge we give up idiots.
we will see
he said he would remove the ban 100 days into his control he hasnt
his government is trying to get us locked up without charge for longer than a month!!!!
suggested idefinitely indefinitely
tried 90 days
and they will keep on trying to wear us down and say ok you can lock us up without charge we give up idiots.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Legal doubt on 28 days detention
Last Updated: Monday, 5 December 2005, 13:11 GMT
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
The Terrorism Bill returns to the House of Lords on Monday
An influential parliamentary group claims there is not enough evidence to justify extending the time a terrorist suspect can be held from 14 to 28 days.
Last month Tony Blair suffered his first ever defeat when MPs threw out plans to allow police to hold suspects for up to 90 days without charge.
Instead MPs voted to extend the detention time from 14 to 28 days.
But the Joint Committee on Human Rights says this could still pose a potential legal problem for the government.
'Glorifying terrorism'
The committee, which is made up of MPs and peers, says the plan could lead to the "inadmissibility at trial of statements obtained following lengthy pre-charge detention".
But the group does not rule out the possibility that such evidence might be produced in the future, subject to improvements in safeguards for the detainee being made.
The issue is likely to be scrutinised on Monday when the Terrorism Bill returns to the Lords for its line-by-line committee stage.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights says it is also concerned that the new offence of glorifying terrorism is "not sufficiently legally certain".
But Lords leader Baroness Amos says under the plans prosecutors will have to show there is a "deliberate intent" in order to bring about charges.
More amendments?
The committee says extending the grounds on which an organisation could be banned to include groups which "glorified" terrorism could conflict with the right of freedom of expression and freedom of association.
It suggests that there be a "reasonable excuse" or "public interest" defence to the proposed new offence of training for terrorism.
What we are seeking to do is to strengthen that part of the bill and make the tests stronger
Baroness Amos
Lady Amos says deliberate "intention" to "glorify or incite terrorism" will be built into the bill.
"What we are seeking to do is to strengthen that part of the bill and make the tests stronger," she said.
Home Secretary Charles Clarke is also considering representations from organisations such as libraries and universities which are concerned that elements of the legislation could affect the right to free expression, she said.
Librarians are worried about lending material which might be construed as having details about terrorism.
There are also question marks over whether the academic study of the Middle East could be interpreted as the "encouragement" or "glorification" of terrorism.
"We may well come back with some amendments to deal with that point," said Lady Amos.
'Balance needed'
But she was not keen to comment on calls by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) to reconsider plans to ban extremist organisations.
The police have warned that the measure could drive such groups underground, making it more difficult to monitor them.
She said ministers had to strike a balance between police concerns and those of "others working in the field" who felt that the legislation should go further.
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
The Terrorism Bill returns to the House of Lords on Monday
An influential parliamentary group claims there is not enough evidence to justify extending the time a terrorist suspect can be held from 14 to 28 days.
Last month Tony Blair suffered his first ever defeat when MPs threw out plans to allow police to hold suspects for up to 90 days without charge.
Instead MPs voted to extend the detention time from 14 to 28 days.
But the Joint Committee on Human Rights says this could still pose a potential legal problem for the government.
'Glorifying terrorism'
The committee, which is made up of MPs and peers, says the plan could lead to the "inadmissibility at trial of statements obtained following lengthy pre-charge detention".
But the group does not rule out the possibility that such evidence might be produced in the future, subject to improvements in safeguards for the detainee being made.
The issue is likely to be scrutinised on Monday when the Terrorism Bill returns to the Lords for its line-by-line committee stage.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights says it is also concerned that the new offence of glorifying terrorism is "not sufficiently legally certain".
But Lords leader Baroness Amos says under the plans prosecutors will have to show there is a "deliberate intent" in order to bring about charges.
More amendments?
The committee says extending the grounds on which an organisation could be banned to include groups which "glorified" terrorism could conflict with the right of freedom of expression and freedom of association.
It suggests that there be a "reasonable excuse" or "public interest" defence to the proposed new offence of training for terrorism.
What we are seeking to do is to strengthen that part of the bill and make the tests stronger
Baroness Amos
Lady Amos says deliberate "intention" to "glorify or incite terrorism" will be built into the bill.
"What we are seeking to do is to strengthen that part of the bill and make the tests stronger," she said.
Home Secretary Charles Clarke is also considering representations from organisations such as libraries and universities which are concerned that elements of the legislation could affect the right to free expression, she said.
Librarians are worried about lending material which might be construed as having details about terrorism.
There are also question marks over whether the academic study of the Middle East could be interpreted as the "encouragement" or "glorification" of terrorism.
"We may well come back with some amendments to deal with that point," said Lady Amos.
'Balance needed'
But she was not keen to comment on calls by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) to reconsider plans to ban extremist organisations.
The police have warned that the measure could drive such groups underground, making it more difficult to monitor them.
She said ministers had to strike a balance between police concerns and those of "others working in the field" who felt that the legislation should go further.
EU treaty threatens economic freedom
London Telegraph | October 22, 2007
Roger Bootle
So he did what we all suspected he would. Gordon Brown agreed to the EU "reform treaty" without granting a referendum. This is, of course, a political matter, par excellence, on which a humble economist can have little to say. But there are economic aspects to our European future to which this matter most definitely relates.
Anyone who has observed the EU process over the years is bound to recognise that things to do with the EU are not quite what they seem. Constitutional and legal niceties are observed at first but can then be over-ridden in pursuit of the ultimate goal, which is the creation of a European state, whether super or otherwise. The Danes said no in their referendum on Maastricht but were then asked the question again. Where was it written that they should be compelled to go on voting until they said "yes"? Why was Italy admitted to the euro even though its debt and deficits were well above the Maastricht reference criteria?
So forget the idea that this treaty is minor and forget the protection afforded by the so-called "red lines". That protection may well not survive the first onslaught in the European courts. What matters is the political will across Europe to forge a European state. As many a European politician has been honest enough to admit, this treaty bears a striking resemblance to the recently abandoned Constitution and as such represents another major step along the road to surrendering national sovereignty altogether. If that result were to emerge, quite apart from the political implications, it would have major economic consequences.
In particular, the danger is that, bit by bit, the considerable economic freedoms we in the UK still enjoy ? to regulate the labour market, set taxes and set interest rates ? would be eroded and we, along with the rest of the EU, would be governed by a single economic policy.
Mind you, it isn't always the case that throwing in your lot with a larger grouping has adverse economic consequences. It all depends upon who you are ? and who is in the larger group with which you are merging. This is why the Italians, for instance, have by and large been enthusiastic Europeans. Their state hasn't worked and its effective replacement by a more powerful EU offers hope of improvement.
But this is not our position. Why has the UK been a comparative success story over the last 20 years? It is difficult to escape the conclusion that this is because the state relinquished many of the levers of control over economic life, thus allowing a greater role for the market. In short, because we have experienced pretty good economic government, not least because we have had less of it.
Some of the economic dangers facing Europe arise from the sheer size of the EU. The world is full of large countries, in terms of both area and population, whose GDP per head, and growth rate, are low. By contrast, there are umpteen examples of small and even micro states which succeed economically. Why is this? The prime reason is that small states tend to enjoy good government. Because the countries are small and vulnerable the politicians are forced to recognise the limits to what they can do. With large states the elites can tilt at whatever windmills they like and the coffers will still overflow and they will still survive. One major exception to this is the US ? enormous yet also enormously successful economically. Yet it proves the rule. For its history and ideology have resulted in definite limitations on the powers of the state. To its very core it has been a market economy.
A second cause for worry is the recent history of the state's role in the European economy and the prevailing ideology about the role of the market among the EU's elites. The key issue is appreciating that governments do not create economic growth ? but they can stop it. It is difficult indeed to imagine a government founding Microsoft, for instance. But, as the German president once said, if it had been founded in Germany, in a garage as it was in America, it would have been promptly closed down by the health and safety inspectors.
Yet it must be easy to believe, as you swan from one gilded cocktail party to the next, that you, the barons of the eurocracy, are creating the prosperity Europe enjoys. After all, didn't you just sign a treaty concerning the promotion of workers' interests, the extension of pension rights, increased maternity pay, etc etc. Without these goodies bestowed by the Euro great and the good where would the poor European citizen be?
The one really big thing to get right is the labour market. People will naturally want to work to improve their lot. You actually have to try hard to stop them, but this is what some governments manage to achieve ? especially in Europe. In the economic sphere most European member states (as opposed to countries) are a massive failure: they have stopped their labour markets from functioning effectively, presided over huge public debts which threaten to become unsustainable under the weight of unfunded pension policies, and are in thrall to aggressive, depredatory trade unions, as evidenced in France last week.
Out of this mishmash of incompetence can we envisage that what will emerge is an enlightened economic government of all Europe? All the signs are that the EU elite has not the slightest conception of how wealth is generated, as opposed to taxed and redistributed. Essentially the EU is living off capital ? the history, the culture and the national institutions which history has bequeathed it. But it is laying down nothing new of value. The EU is likely to continue to be an economic failure for years to come.
This is the institutional structure to which the European elites are so keen to grant increased power and to which we have chosen to become more closely attached politically ? defended, of course, by our (thin) red lines. Why? It's not easy to give a single, clear, logical answer. Rather, several candidates suggest themselves: because the euro-glitterati don't understand economics, but do understand their own self-interest; because they are slaves to some defunct economist or other; because they don't think the economics matter compared with the politics; because they think big is better. I have come to believe it is best to think of the elites dragging us into ever closer union as like the soldiers in Tolstoy's War and Peace, drawn to march across Europe by some inexorable force, beyond thought or logic.
For our future we must hope, against all the evidence, they will learn their lesson ? or that we will learn ours, before it is too late.
eu treaty london telegraph
Roger Bootle
So he did what we all suspected he would. Gordon Brown agreed to the EU "reform treaty" without granting a referendum. This is, of course, a political matter, par excellence, on which a humble economist can have little to say. But there are economic aspects to our European future to which this matter most definitely relates.
Anyone who has observed the EU process over the years is bound to recognise that things to do with the EU are not quite what they seem. Constitutional and legal niceties are observed at first but can then be over-ridden in pursuit of the ultimate goal, which is the creation of a European state, whether super or otherwise. The Danes said no in their referendum on Maastricht but were then asked the question again. Where was it written that they should be compelled to go on voting until they said "yes"? Why was Italy admitted to the euro even though its debt and deficits were well above the Maastricht reference criteria?
So forget the idea that this treaty is minor and forget the protection afforded by the so-called "red lines". That protection may well not survive the first onslaught in the European courts. What matters is the political will across Europe to forge a European state. As many a European politician has been honest enough to admit, this treaty bears a striking resemblance to the recently abandoned Constitution and as such represents another major step along the road to surrendering national sovereignty altogether. If that result were to emerge, quite apart from the political implications, it would have major economic consequences.
In particular, the danger is that, bit by bit, the considerable economic freedoms we in the UK still enjoy ? to regulate the labour market, set taxes and set interest rates ? would be eroded and we, along with the rest of the EU, would be governed by a single economic policy.
Mind you, it isn't always the case that throwing in your lot with a larger grouping has adverse economic consequences. It all depends upon who you are ? and who is in the larger group with which you are merging. This is why the Italians, for instance, have by and large been enthusiastic Europeans. Their state hasn't worked and its effective replacement by a more powerful EU offers hope of improvement.
But this is not our position. Why has the UK been a comparative success story over the last 20 years? It is difficult to escape the conclusion that this is because the state relinquished many of the levers of control over economic life, thus allowing a greater role for the market. In short, because we have experienced pretty good economic government, not least because we have had less of it.
Some of the economic dangers facing Europe arise from the sheer size of the EU. The world is full of large countries, in terms of both area and population, whose GDP per head, and growth rate, are low. By contrast, there are umpteen examples of small and even micro states which succeed economically. Why is this? The prime reason is that small states tend to enjoy good government. Because the countries are small and vulnerable the politicians are forced to recognise the limits to what they can do. With large states the elites can tilt at whatever windmills they like and the coffers will still overflow and they will still survive. One major exception to this is the US ? enormous yet also enormously successful economically. Yet it proves the rule. For its history and ideology have resulted in definite limitations on the powers of the state. To its very core it has been a market economy.
A second cause for worry is the recent history of the state's role in the European economy and the prevailing ideology about the role of the market among the EU's elites. The key issue is appreciating that governments do not create economic growth ? but they can stop it. It is difficult indeed to imagine a government founding Microsoft, for instance. But, as the German president once said, if it had been founded in Germany, in a garage as it was in America, it would have been promptly closed down by the health and safety inspectors.
Yet it must be easy to believe, as you swan from one gilded cocktail party to the next, that you, the barons of the eurocracy, are creating the prosperity Europe enjoys. After all, didn't you just sign a treaty concerning the promotion of workers' interests, the extension of pension rights, increased maternity pay, etc etc. Without these goodies bestowed by the Euro great and the good where would the poor European citizen be?
The one really big thing to get right is the labour market. People will naturally want to work to improve their lot. You actually have to try hard to stop them, but this is what some governments manage to achieve ? especially in Europe. In the economic sphere most European member states (as opposed to countries) are a massive failure: they have stopped their labour markets from functioning effectively, presided over huge public debts which threaten to become unsustainable under the weight of unfunded pension policies, and are in thrall to aggressive, depredatory trade unions, as evidenced in France last week.
Out of this mishmash of incompetence can we envisage that what will emerge is an enlightened economic government of all Europe? All the signs are that the EU elite has not the slightest conception of how wealth is generated, as opposed to taxed and redistributed. Essentially the EU is living off capital ? the history, the culture and the national institutions which history has bequeathed it. But it is laying down nothing new of value. The EU is likely to continue to be an economic failure for years to come.
This is the institutional structure to which the European elites are so keen to grant increased power and to which we have chosen to become more closely attached politically ? defended, of course, by our (thin) red lines. Why? It's not easy to give a single, clear, logical answer. Rather, several candidates suggest themselves: because the euro-glitterati don't understand economics, but do understand their own self-interest; because they are slaves to some defunct economist or other; because they don't think the economics matter compared with the politics; because they think big is better. I have come to believe it is best to think of the elites dragging us into ever closer union as like the soldiers in Tolstoy's War and Peace, drawn to march across Europe by some inexorable force, beyond thought or logic.
For our future we must hope, against all the evidence, they will learn their lesson ? or that we will learn ours, before it is too late.
eu treaty london telegraph
Saturday, October 20, 2007
http://www.bilderberg.tv/video/27040-bbc-radio-on-the-bilderberg-group-2002.html
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2007/rp07-064.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIYPeiuRkh8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYU0pwk8zPI
eu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuFxmH9zQ2o&mode=related&search=
constitution now on the cards news eu
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7052180.stm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0yU37mHf_M&mode=related&search=
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2007/rp07-064.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIYPeiuRkh8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYU0pwk8zPI
eu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuFxmH9zQ2o&mode=related&search=
constitution now on the cards news eu
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7052180.stm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0yU37mHf_M&mode=related&search=
Monday, October 1, 2007
Big Brother Britain: Government and councils to spy on ALL our phones
By JASON LEWIS - More by this author »
Last updated at 17:50pm on 30th September 2007
Comments (61)
Officials from the top of Government to lowly council officers will be given unprecedented powers to access details of every phone call in Britain under laws coming into force tomorrow.
The new rules compel phone companies to retain information, however private, about all landline and mobile calls, and make them available to some 795 public bodies and quangos.
The move, enacted by the personal decree of Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, will give police and security services a right they have long demanded: to delve at will into the phone records of British citizens and businesses.
Scroll down for more...
The Government will be given access to details of every phone call in Britain. (Posed by model)
But the same powers will also be handed to the tax authorities, 475 local councils, and a host of other organisations, including the Food Standards Agency, the Department of Health, the Immigration Service, the Gaming Board and the Charity Commission. The initiative, formulated in the wake of the Madrid and London terrorist attacks
of 2004 and 2005, was put forward as a vital tool in the fight against terrorism. However, civil liberties campaigners say the new powers amount to a 'free for all' for the State snooping on its citizens.
And they angrily questioned why the records were being made available to so many organisations. Similar provisions are being brought in across Europe, but under much tighter regulation. In Britain, say critics, private and sensitive information will inevitably fall into the wrong hands.
Records will detail precisely what calls are made, their time and duration, and the name and address of the registered user of the phone.
The files will even reveal where people are when they made mobile phone calls. By knowing which mast transmitted the signal, officials will be able to pinpoint the source of a call to within a few feet. This can even be used to track someone's route if, for example, they make a call from a moving car.
Files will also be kept on the sending and receipt of text messages.
By 2009 the Government plans to extend the rules to cover internet use: the websites we have visited, the people we have emailed and phone calls made over the net.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has spearheaded the move to give police and security services access to the phone records of British citizens and businesses.
The new laws will make it a legal requirement for phone companies to keep records for at least a year, and to make them available to the authorities. Until now, companies have been reluctant to allow unfettered access to their files, citing data protection laws, although they have had a voluntary arrangement with law enforcement agencies since 2003.
Many of the organisations granted access to the records already have systems allowing them to search phone-call databases over a computer link without needing staff at the phone company to intervene.
Police requests for phone records will need the approval of a superintendent or inspector, while council officials must get permission from the authority's assistant chief officer. Thousands of staff in other agencies will be legally entitled to retrieve the records once the request is approved by a senior official.
The new measures were implemented after the Home Secretary signed a 'statutory instrument' on July 26. The process allows the Government to alter laws without a full act of Parliament.
The move was nodded through the House of Lords two days earlier without a debate.
It puts into UK law a European Directive aimed at the 'investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime'. But the British law allows the information to be used much more widely to combat all crimes, however minor.
The huge number of organisations allowed to access this data was attacked by Liberty, the civil liberties campaign group. Other organisations allowed to see the data include the Royal Navy Regulating Branch, the Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary, the Department of Trade and Industry, NHS Trusts, ambulance and fire services, the Department of Transport and the Department for the Environment.
A spokesman for Liberty said: 'Hundreds of bodies have been given the power to look at this highly sensitive information. It is yet another example of how greater and greater access is being given to information on our movements with little debate and little public accountability.
'It is a free for all. There is a lack of oversight of how and why public bodies are using these records. There is no public record of what they are using this information for.'
Tony Bunyan, of civil liberties group Statewatch, said: 'The retention of everyone's communications data is a momentous decision, one that should not be slipped through Parliament without anyone noticing.'
Last year, the voluntary arrangement allowed 439,000 searches of phone records. But the Government brought in legislation because the industry did not routinely keep all the information it wanted.
Different authorities will have different levels of access to the systems. Police and intelligence services will be able to see more detailed information than local authorities. And officials at NHS Trusts and ambulance and fire services can obtain the records only in rare cases when, for example, they are trying to save a patient's life.
The new system will be overseen by the Interception of Communications Commissioner, who also ensures security and intelligence services' phone taps are legal.
The commissioner, Sir Paul Kennedy, reports to the Prime Minister and already carries out random inspections of some agencies legally allowed to see phone records under the existing voluntary scheme. Last year inspectors visited 22 councils already making 'significant' use of their powers' to access phone records. A report said the results were 'variable', but within the law.
Privacy watchdog the Information Commissioner, which has responsibly for protecting personal information and policing the Data Protection Act had virtually no role in the new laws.
A spokeswoman said its only function was to ensure 'data security' at the phone companies, adding: 'We have no oversight role over the release of this information.'
The Home Office said there were safeguards to ensure the new law was being used properly. Every authority had a nominated senior member of staff who was legally responsible for the use the phone data was put to, 'the integrity of the process' and for 'reporting errors'.
A spokesman said: 'The most detailed level of data can be accessed only by law enforcement agencies such as the police. More basic access is available to local authority bodies such as trading standards and environmental health who can only use these powers to prevent and detect crime.'
A spokesman for the Local Government Association, which represents councils across England and Wales, said: 'Councils would only use these powers in circumstances such as benefit fraud, when the taxpayer is being ripped off for many thousands of pounds.'
He added that it was 'very unlikely' the powers would be used against non-payers of council tax or for parking fines 'as the sums involved are not sufficient to justify the use of this sort of information or the costs involved in applying it'.
Share this article:What is this?Digg it | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Newsvine | Nowpublic
Add your comment | View all Comments (61)
61 people have commented on this story so far. Tell us what you think below.
Here's a sample of the latest comments published. You can click view all to read all comments that readers have sent in.
And to think I was thinking of living over there next year. George Orwell was only a few years out.
What on earth has happened to this Country, thats Labour for you and if they get in here in Australia no doubt it will happen here too. They say you get what you deserve and what you vote for. How true.
- Alan Hall, Southport Gold Coast Australia
If it can help stop terrorism I'm all for it. The authorities can listen in to my phone calls any day and if they feel like reading my emails they'll probably not be able to stop yawning.
- Alicia (Ex Pat), Dallas,USA
Will these rules apply to the 'folks' at Westminster?
Can't wait to see the headlines in the Press!
- Fyodor, Congleton
press
By JASON LEWIS - More by this author »
Last updated at 17:50pm on 30th September 2007
Comments (61)
Officials from the top of Government to lowly council officers will be given unprecedented powers to access details of every phone call in Britain under laws coming into force tomorrow.
The new rules compel phone companies to retain information, however private, about all landline and mobile calls, and make them available to some 795 public bodies and quangos.
The move, enacted by the personal decree of Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, will give police and security services a right they have long demanded: to delve at will into the phone records of British citizens and businesses.
Scroll down for more...
The Government will be given access to details of every phone call in Britain. (Posed by model)
But the same powers will also be handed to the tax authorities, 475 local councils, and a host of other organisations, including the Food Standards Agency, the Department of Health, the Immigration Service, the Gaming Board and the Charity Commission. The initiative, formulated in the wake of the Madrid and London terrorist attacks
of 2004 and 2005, was put forward as a vital tool in the fight against terrorism. However, civil liberties campaigners say the new powers amount to a 'free for all' for the State snooping on its citizens.
And they angrily questioned why the records were being made available to so many organisations. Similar provisions are being brought in across Europe, but under much tighter regulation. In Britain, say critics, private and sensitive information will inevitably fall into the wrong hands.
Records will detail precisely what calls are made, their time and duration, and the name and address of the registered user of the phone.
The files will even reveal where people are when they made mobile phone calls. By knowing which mast transmitted the signal, officials will be able to pinpoint the source of a call to within a few feet. This can even be used to track someone's route if, for example, they make a call from a moving car.
Files will also be kept on the sending and receipt of text messages.
By 2009 the Government plans to extend the rules to cover internet use: the websites we have visited, the people we have emailed and phone calls made over the net.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has spearheaded the move to give police and security services access to the phone records of British citizens and businesses.
The new laws will make it a legal requirement for phone companies to keep records for at least a year, and to make them available to the authorities. Until now, companies have been reluctant to allow unfettered access to their files, citing data protection laws, although they have had a voluntary arrangement with law enforcement agencies since 2003.
Many of the organisations granted access to the records already have systems allowing them to search phone-call databases over a computer link without needing staff at the phone company to intervene.
Police requests for phone records will need the approval of a superintendent or inspector, while council officials must get permission from the authority's assistant chief officer. Thousands of staff in other agencies will be legally entitled to retrieve the records once the request is approved by a senior official.
The new measures were implemented after the Home Secretary signed a 'statutory instrument' on July 26. The process allows the Government to alter laws without a full act of Parliament.
The move was nodded through the House of Lords two days earlier without a debate.
It puts into UK law a European Directive aimed at the 'investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime'. But the British law allows the information to be used much more widely to combat all crimes, however minor.
The huge number of organisations allowed to access this data was attacked by Liberty, the civil liberties campaign group. Other organisations allowed to see the data include the Royal Navy Regulating Branch, the Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary, the Department of Trade and Industry, NHS Trusts, ambulance and fire services, the Department of Transport and the Department for the Environment.
A spokesman for Liberty said: 'Hundreds of bodies have been given the power to look at this highly sensitive information. It is yet another example of how greater and greater access is being given to information on our movements with little debate and little public accountability.
'It is a free for all. There is a lack of oversight of how and why public bodies are using these records. There is no public record of what they are using this information for.'
Tony Bunyan, of civil liberties group Statewatch, said: 'The retention of everyone's communications data is a momentous decision, one that should not be slipped through Parliament without anyone noticing.'
Last year, the voluntary arrangement allowed 439,000 searches of phone records. But the Government brought in legislation because the industry did not routinely keep all the information it wanted.
Different authorities will have different levels of access to the systems. Police and intelligence services will be able to see more detailed information than local authorities. And officials at NHS Trusts and ambulance and fire services can obtain the records only in rare cases when, for example, they are trying to save a patient's life.
The new system will be overseen by the Interception of Communications Commissioner, who also ensures security and intelligence services' phone taps are legal.
The commissioner, Sir Paul Kennedy, reports to the Prime Minister and already carries out random inspections of some agencies legally allowed to see phone records under the existing voluntary scheme. Last year inspectors visited 22 councils already making 'significant' use of their powers' to access phone records. A report said the results were 'variable', but within the law.
Privacy watchdog the Information Commissioner, which has responsibly for protecting personal information and policing the Data Protection Act had virtually no role in the new laws.
A spokeswoman said its only function was to ensure 'data security' at the phone companies, adding: 'We have no oversight role over the release of this information.'
The Home Office said there were safeguards to ensure the new law was being used properly. Every authority had a nominated senior member of staff who was legally responsible for the use the phone data was put to, 'the integrity of the process' and for 'reporting errors'.
A spokesman said: 'The most detailed level of data can be accessed only by law enforcement agencies such as the police. More basic access is available to local authority bodies such as trading standards and environmental health who can only use these powers to prevent and detect crime.'
A spokesman for the Local Government Association, which represents councils across England and Wales, said: 'Councils would only use these powers in circumstances such as benefit fraud, when the taxpayer is being ripped off for many thousands of pounds.'
He added that it was 'very unlikely' the powers would be used against non-payers of council tax or for parking fines 'as the sums involved are not sufficient to justify the use of this sort of information or the costs involved in applying it'.
Share this article:What is this?Digg it | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Newsvine | Nowpublic
Add your comment | View all Comments (61)
61 people have commented on this story so far. Tell us what you think below.
Here's a sample of the latest comments published. You can click view all to read all comments that readers have sent in.
And to think I was thinking of living over there next year. George Orwell was only a few years out.
What on earth has happened to this Country, thats Labour for you and if they get in here in Australia no doubt it will happen here too. They say you get what you deserve and what you vote for. How true.
- Alan Hall, Southport Gold Coast Australia
If it can help stop terrorism I'm all for it. The authorities can listen in to my phone calls any day and if they feel like reading my emails they'll probably not be able to stop yawning.
- Alicia (Ex Pat), Dallas,USA
Will these rules apply to the 'folks' at Westminster?
Can't wait to see the headlines in the Press!
- Fyodor, Congleton
press
Thursday, September 27, 2007
rage against the stated posistion of the church for ever!!!
Comment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US bishops have bent the knee to the will of the bully
Uniting in homophobia, the Anglican church has delivered another blow to the battle against global religious fascism
Giles Fraser
Thursday September 27, 2007
The Guardian
After months of "Anglican church to divide" headlines, the end is, at last, nigh. Those Anglicans who are really no more than fundamentalists in vestments will split off and form a version of the continuing Anglican church, or whatever they will call it. And the moderate conservatives and the moderate progressives will settle down to business as usual. After much worry, the Archbishop of Canterbury will be able to have a good night's sleep. The church is safe.
blah blah blah
next we will have to accept practicing adulteres as bishops. please we do not have to act on all of our sexual desires and we are told not to act on homosexual desires should we have them adulterous and premaritial and bestial and incestous we do not fear those who dont resist but that doesnt mean we have to endorse the acting on those and not state that they are contrary to gods ordinance and cannot be said to be recommended by someone saying what they are saying is from the mouth of god
whatever happened to the causes of crime we allready have people being tracked monitored and tottured without trial and accusation explanation rhyme or reason for being happy do you care about outniggering the tories oh heck yeah
Comment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US bishops have bent the knee to the will of the bully
Uniting in homophobia, the Anglican church has delivered another blow to the battle against global religious fascism
Giles Fraser
Thursday September 27, 2007
The Guardian
After months of "Anglican church to divide" headlines, the end is, at last, nigh. Those Anglicans who are really no more than fundamentalists in vestments will split off and form a version of the continuing Anglican church, or whatever they will call it. And the moderate conservatives and the moderate progressives will settle down to business as usual. After much worry, the Archbishop of Canterbury will be able to have a good night's sleep. The church is safe.
blah blah blah
next we will have to accept practicing adulteres as bishops. please we do not have to act on all of our sexual desires and we are told not to act on homosexual desires should we have them adulterous and premaritial and bestial and incestous we do not fear those who dont resist but that doesnt mean we have to endorse the acting on those and not state that they are contrary to gods ordinance and cannot be said to be recommended by someone saying what they are saying is from the mouth of god
whatever happened to the causes of crime we allready have people being tracked monitored and tottured without trial and accusation explanation rhyme or reason for being happy do you care about outniggering the tories oh heck yeah
have a go heroes
it seems that they think it is lack of legislation
but i am sure it is lack of courage and interest compassion in the psyche of the people this is a moral and attitudinal problem and there is no way you can give citizenship by legislation basicly this government seems to think you can legislate all of the personal development that would make and has made this country in the past great but you need a spiritual teacher to do that like jesus. who's followers are increasingly politically incorrect due to the god delusion.... however you need an air of freedom to become all that you can be too much legislated morality and your spirit and creativity is stifled some things wont go wrong but the highest ideals cannot be attained this way only via freedom and education
it seems that they think it is lack of legislation
but i am sure it is lack of courage and interest compassion in the psyche of the people this is a moral and attitudinal problem and there is no way you can give citizenship by legislation basicly this government seems to think you can legislate all of the personal development that would make and has made this country in the past great but you need a spiritual teacher to do that like jesus. who's followers are increasingly politically incorrect due to the god delusion.... however you need an air of freedom to become all that you can be too much legislated morality and your spirit and creativity is stifled some things wont go wrong but the highest ideals cannot be attained this way only via freedom and education
Friday, September 21, 2007
rebelious celibates? rauncy celibate women
this article was called porn by the library yet again =. how can the guardian website be a sponsor of porn and how could a post on celibacy qualify!!
this article was called porn by the library yet again =. how can the guardian website be a sponsor of porn and how could a post on celibacy qualify!!
the jena 6 new rights movement justice in the justice system for blacks
jena six time to remove the justice racists
note they miss out that there were two white on black attacks before this one that the police did nothing about one was with a gun!!!!!!
biased media
neither have they mentioned the attorney who defended the guy who they were marching for the one who was supposed to be sentenced that day but had his sentence overulled
was so unfairly tried it was a joke
guardian does a better job
too many foreign docotors ... start to displace homegrown rather than make up shortfall in good doctors.
goverment imports 2 many foreign doctors
i knew this was a problem as there have been many anti foreign doctor hits in the news that could only come from a desire to discriminate against them.
i think certainly as someon who trains in the uk you shouldnt have to emigrate to get a job in your proffession
certainly get in foreign doctors to fill up the shortfall but if there is no shortfall then there has to be some adjustment so that they are not imported.
we all know this the devil is in the details they have to work to get it right
they could hire outside advisors to help with the head work as they are not nescessarily the best to do the policy work although it is their job.
i knew this was a problem as there have been many anti foreign doctor hits in the news that could only come from a desire to discriminate against them.
i think certainly as someon who trains in the uk you shouldnt have to emigrate to get a job in your proffession
certainly get in foreign doctors to fill up the shortfall but if there is no shortfall then there has to be some adjustment so that they are not imported.
we all know this the devil is in the details they have to work to get it right
they could hire outside advisors to help with the head work as they are not nescessarily the best to do the policy work although it is their job.
better?
this article seems to be guidance to school from governments not legislation though we must start looking at goverment site
this article seems to be guidance to school from governments not legislation though we must start looking at goverment site
regulation of the internet and free speech coming through the back door via creep?
i agree its good to be able to block certain senders of hate mail though it should be possible to get the offenders brought to book if they are sending hate mail to you you have the evidence the teachers should move.
there is something wrong with our culture that such a wave of menace is out there i would like a comparision to other nations in europe and usa.
i think though regulation of the internet content could well start a dangerous move to censorship of satire and dissent just think of what the 9 11 truth movement has done for good the ron paul campaign and the tasering incident and that would have been shut down most likely i think kids will always gossip about teachers behind there back and sharing spoof videos amongsts each other is hardly going to do serious damage to the teachers unless they are logging on to facebook and myspace and watching them. I think they need to state excatly what they are going after because there are allready laws in place to counter most forms of illegal and the most damaging kinds of speech slander and defamation are allready prosecuteable and i am sure harrasment is allready written into the things that are not legally allowed by the service providers all that should be needed is for the existing legislation to be enacted i dont think bullying can be legislated away anyway it is a pernicious social problem and probably requires a more cultural problem. big government making draconian laws sets a great example of bullying especially when you cant get to know what you have been accused of and have no way of acessing the justice system that is oppressing you.
i agree its good to be able to block certain senders of hate mail though it should be possible to get the offenders brought to book if they are sending hate mail to you you have the evidence the teachers should move.
there is something wrong with our culture that such a wave of menace is out there i would like a comparision to other nations in europe and usa.
i think though regulation of the internet content could well start a dangerous move to censorship of satire and dissent just think of what the 9 11 truth movement has done for good the ron paul campaign and the tasering incident and that would have been shut down most likely i think kids will always gossip about teachers behind there back and sharing spoof videos amongsts each other is hardly going to do serious damage to the teachers unless they are logging on to facebook and myspace and watching them. I think they need to state excatly what they are going after because there are allready laws in place to counter most forms of illegal and the most damaging kinds of speech slander and defamation are allready prosecuteable and i am sure harrasment is allready written into the things that are not legally allowed by the service providers all that should be needed is for the existing legislation to be enacted i dont think bullying can be legislated away anyway it is a pernicious social problem and probably requires a more cultural problem. big government making draconian laws sets a great example of bullying especially when you cant get to know what you have been accused of and have no way of acessing the justice system that is oppressing you.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
news links september
gambling in uk survey 250,000 addicts we will see if they push this up with their new casino legislation
profit from misery?!
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/itn/20070919/tuk-britain-has-250-000-problem-gamblers-dba1618_1.html
tony blair was wrong on civl liberties but we need action not rhetoric
ron paul may be doing us a favour
demonstration right revoked promised but nothing done
id biometric now secretly taken by schools
dna database eugenetics?!
detention without accusation!!
mental healt act we dont care you will be medicated whether you think you need it or not even in your own home. we will get you!!! black man!
A minister has rejected Tony Blair's argument that people must be ready to accept reductions in their civil liberties in the fight against terror because "the rules of the game have changed".
(Advertisement)
Tony McNulty, Home Office minister responsible for security, said that Mr Blair's argument was one of a number of mistakes made by the Government in the wake of the July 7 terror attacks in London in 2005 and the September 11 atrocities in the USA.
Acting as if the rules which have governed the British way of life and protected individuals' liberties had changed may even have played into the hands of the terrorists, he suggested.
Too much weight was given to a legislative clampdown on terror groups and not enough to winning the hearts and minds of the Muslim community.
Within weeks of the July 7 attacks, Mr Blair announced a raft of legislative measures to tackle terrorists, including tougher deportation and extradition powers, a new offence of glorifying terrorism and powers to close a place of worship.
Confronting criticisms that his measures would infringe civil liberties, he responded bluntly: "Let no-one be in any doubt, the rules of the game are changing."
But Mr McNulty suggested that ministers had been too ready to adopt exceptional measures which could impact on the liberties enjoyed as part of the British way of life.
He told a meeting sponsored by the Institute of Public Policy Research on the fringe of the Labour conference in Bournemouth that mistakes had been made by the Government, but that ministers had learnt from those mistakes and altered their approach.
"What are the mistakes?" he asked. "With the best will in the world, where we are at now as a Government means that we are coming round to the view that says, actually, the rules of the game haven't changed and to suggest that the rules of the game have changed and we need some specific response to this specific threat is actually to help the other side more than our own side.
"The more these things are tackled through normality, with some little exceptions on top, rather than absolutely by exception, the better. The more your response is rooted in our civil liberties and human rights, with whatever slight tweaks at the top, the better."
profit from misery?!
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/itn/20070919/tuk-britain-has-250-000-problem-gamblers-dba1618_1.html
tony blair was wrong on civl liberties but we need action not rhetoric
ron paul may be doing us a favour
demonstration right revoked promised but nothing done
id biometric now secretly taken by schools
dna database eugenetics?!
detention without accusation!!
mental healt act we dont care you will be medicated whether you think you need it or not even in your own home. we will get you!!! black man!
A minister has rejected Tony Blair's argument that people must be ready to accept reductions in their civil liberties in the fight against terror because "the rules of the game have changed".
(Advertisement)
Tony McNulty, Home Office minister responsible for security, said that Mr Blair's argument was one of a number of mistakes made by the Government in the wake of the July 7 terror attacks in London in 2005 and the September 11 atrocities in the USA.
Acting as if the rules which have governed the British way of life and protected individuals' liberties had changed may even have played into the hands of the terrorists, he suggested.
Too much weight was given to a legislative clampdown on terror groups and not enough to winning the hearts and minds of the Muslim community.
Within weeks of the July 7 attacks, Mr Blair announced a raft of legislative measures to tackle terrorists, including tougher deportation and extradition powers, a new offence of glorifying terrorism and powers to close a place of worship.
Confronting criticisms that his measures would infringe civil liberties, he responded bluntly: "Let no-one be in any doubt, the rules of the game are changing."
But Mr McNulty suggested that ministers had been too ready to adopt exceptional measures which could impact on the liberties enjoyed as part of the British way of life.
He told a meeting sponsored by the Institute of Public Policy Research on the fringe of the Labour conference in Bournemouth that mistakes had been made by the Government, but that ministers had learnt from those mistakes and altered their approach.
"What are the mistakes?" he asked. "With the best will in the world, where we are at now as a Government means that we are coming round to the view that says, actually, the rules of the game haven't changed and to suggest that the rules of the game have changed and we need some specific response to this specific threat is actually to help the other side more than our own side.
"The more these things are tackled through normality, with some little exceptions on top, rather than absolutely by exception, the better. The more your response is rooted in our civil liberties and human rights, with whatever slight tweaks at the top, the better."
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
tazered for the truth
another tasering of a student for supposedly not showing his id at a library
i allready have forwarded it to everyone in my address book
we follow the united states and have recently got tazer guns
i am not sure yet if asking a well presented but politically hot question would get you arrested and tazerd especially as he was as polite as he could by means of introduction and the senator was happy to answer the question.
you cannot say that a politically difficult questioin is disturbing the peace at a political rally when you are given the microphone and time to give your question?!!!
the scene caused by the police afterward is certainly a disturbance of the peace after the guy spoke if they had left him alone kerry would have answered and that would have been that no one in the audience would agree with you that the guy was disturbing the peace by speaking in the manner he spoke he wasnt particularly loud like shouting or shouting with a bull horn
if you think his manner wasnt as polilte as it could be you should note the content of his question
disenfranchisment of black voters and rigged elections is not the kind of thing that should be completely unmoving to those who withness it. he didnt use any bad words or to incite violence as far as i could make.
he didnt fight he spoke he didnt challenge to a fight,
"They must find it difficult...
those who have taken authority as the truth,
rather than the truth as authority."
----- Original Message ----
From: John Ripley
To: Jason Rollin
Sent: Tuesday, 18 September, 2007 12:27:05 PM
Subject: Re: Better Video of Student Tasered
Jason,
Not sure how things work in England, but here's some insight into our own laws:
Disturbing the peace is a crime generally defined as the unsettling of proper order in a public space through one's actions.
This can include creating loud noise by fighting or challenging to fight, disturbing others by loud and unreasonable noise (including loud music or dog barking), or using offensive words likely to incite violence.
Disturbing the peace is typically considered a misdemeanor or an infraction depending on the jurisdiction and is often punishable by either a fine or brief term in jail.
However, a person held in breach of the peace will not have a criminal record entered against their name; which would otherwise seriously hurt the person's future dealings with authorities, or when seeking future employment.
If law enforcement officials are unable to detain the suspect in a peaceful manner, or if the suspect is resisting arrest, causing harm or creating a security risk, or is engaging in violence, use of less-than-lethal weapons is permitted in order for officers regain control of the suspect, granted he or she has been sufficiently warned of the intent to use of the weapon prior to the discharge.
If you need to hear the "bad language" that he used, I refer you to this video (more complete). I don't think I really have to mention that this kid is addressing a United States Senator in such a way that you shouldn't even talk to your own parents...
The long and the short of it: this guy had it coming. The police will consider your call a mere annoyance and go about their less-than-lethal protocol as usual. Interesting video though! Please, for the sake of the officers who did the right thing, do NOT forward this email to everyone in your address book! Thanks.
Saturday, September 8, 2007
breaking news
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Cameron's 'national service' plan
initial angry response tempered after realising it wasnt compulsory
then encouraging charity work is good but it is not national service there are other ways to get voluntary service and it is up to the voluntary sector to do it though inspiring people to do charitable things is good
any legislation is likely to have a coercive side which is stupid forcing people to give to charity?? then i see the money incentive now you are paying people to give to charity ?? thats also strange philosophicly not a frugal thing for government to do?! in the end i guess national service is something they want to bring back in and this is a program that could seem benign but then be ramped up and at least condition the children to being controlled by the government in this war on terror which nobody believes in army places are hard to fill so they are angling for the draft?!
ask the church about character reform dont think forcing national service is going to do any more than the allready compulsory work placement scheme does for fixing the morals of britain.
Cameron's 'national service' plan
ITN - 1 hour 38 minutes agoTory leader David Cameron wants every 16-year-old to devote their summer to "patriotic" national service under radical proposals for fixing Britain's "broken society".
(Advertisement)
School leavers would be encouraged to join six-week projects such as military training, working with the elderly and even travelling overseas to help in Third World countries.
Mr Cameron said he felt "very passionate" about the idea, saying: "This will make people feel proud about themselves and about their country."
Young people would not be legally obliged to take part in the National Citizen Service but Mr Cameron said he hoped it would be too attractive to pass up.
Participants would be eligible for a cash sum on completion, with half going to a charity of their choice and the rest to the organisation that ran the project.
Mr Cameron said: "It will mix people from different countries. North and south, black and white, rich and poor. They will be putting something back into the community.
He continued: "It will be a way of learning respect for our country and each other just like national service was.
"This could really change our country for the better. I feel very passionate about this. It should be a part of every child's experience.
"You should go from primary school to secondary school, and then at 16 your citizen service. We cannot afford not to do this."
then encouraging charity work is good but it is not national service there are other ways to get voluntary service and it is up to the voluntary sector to do it though inspiring people to do charitable things is good
any legislation is likely to have a coercive side which is stupid forcing people to give to charity?? then i see the money incentive now you are paying people to give to charity ?? thats also strange philosophicly not a frugal thing for government to do?! in the end i guess national service is something they want to bring back in and this is a program that could seem benign but then be ramped up and at least condition the children to being controlled by the government in this war on terror which nobody believes in army places are hard to fill so they are angling for the draft?!
ask the church about character reform dont think forcing national service is going to do any more than the allready compulsory work placement scheme does for fixing the morals of britain.
Cameron's 'national service' plan
ITN - 1 hour 38 minutes agoTory leader David Cameron wants every 16-year-old to devote their summer to "patriotic" national service under radical proposals for fixing Britain's "broken society".
(Advertisement)
School leavers would be encouraged to join six-week projects such as military training, working with the elderly and even travelling overseas to help in Third World countries.
Mr Cameron said he felt "very passionate" about the idea, saying: "This will make people feel proud about themselves and about their country."
Young people would not be legally obliged to take part in the National Citizen Service but Mr Cameron said he hoped it would be too attractive to pass up.
Participants would be eligible for a cash sum on completion, with half going to a charity of their choice and the rest to the organisation that ran the project.
Mr Cameron said: "It will mix people from different countries. North and south, black and white, rich and poor. They will be putting something back into the community.
He continued: "It will be a way of learning respect for our country and each other just like national service was.
"This could really change our country for the better. I feel very passionate about this. It should be a part of every child's experience.
"You should go from primary school to secondary school, and then at 16 your citizen service. We cannot afford not to do this."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)