european convention on human rights by churchill
freedom of speech
protest
no detention without trial
..
protection of liberties of people
from state
destroyed by blair and
attacked by gordon brown
based on terror
the new german
terror legistation
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)