Justice

The BR Brute Squad

Jock — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 17:19:13 +0100

...remember when policemen were people you felt you could go up to and ask for directions?

No longer it seems. In fact, if you have anything like a map with you, you could find yourself staying at Belmarsh (warning, watching the whole of this may cause you to damage your computer in anger!):

H/T Tristan

I am so glad Terence was filming this. Everyone should get the chance to see this kind of thing and have a real good think about the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" attitude that is allowing our country to become a fascist state. The ability to stop at random (I was going to say "take to one side", but clearly they're happy to do this in full view of the entire concourse), with no probable cause whatever, and humiliate them in order to show other passengers "look, we're doing something about your security" is utterly obnoxious. I must say, though, I am amazed that he was allowed to continue filming, considering all that has been going on about photography in public places.

Britain, like never before, needs Fourth Amendment rights enshrined in law: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Liberal Cornwall? The "Golden Triangle" tarnishes

Jock — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 07:30:39 +0100

I have no idea what problems Redruth faces with its "yoof". I have no problem with the police taking tough action to end the sort of disturbances that have been seen as the "posh kids" descend on places like Rock for the summer. But a broad brush, "voluntary" (but "we can make orders if parents do not co-operate") curfew is arbitrary and collective punishment affecting innocent and guilty alike.

Clearly "liberal" Cornwall has a different version of the Human Rights Act down there. Are we to assume that the black in the Cornish nationalist flag commemorates the death of freedom?

And now we hear that nine out of ten parents nationwide - the mainland as well as Cornwall that is - would welcome a curfew. That's okay then.

In a liberal world view government exists to temper the tyranny of the majority rather than allow it adversely to affect the lives of a minority. I suppose at least children, whether domesticated or feral, grow out of their minority status, so are only temporarily affected. That's okay then.

What a fekking nonsense. I hear one of our MPs for the People's Democratic Enclave of Cornwall actually supports this idea, not only that but the person concerned has a portfolio that deals with similar such issues nationwide. That's okay then.

In what world view is a curfew, an arbitrary and collective punishment, "liberal"?

On the plus side, all those children will be safely at home in time to see all the post-watershed violence, sex and sweariness on TV. That's okay then! read more »

42 days again: just who are all these people?

Jock — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 11:08:34 +0100

So an ICM poll for the Telegraph today claims that:

"Sunday's survey provides some good news for Mr Brown - 65 per cent of those questioned support his 42-day plan, with backing coming from voters across the political spectrum.

Thirty per cent think the limit should stay at 28 days, the position favoured by the Conservatives."

Now, aside from the fact that I must be in the five per cent not even mentioned there, because I support no extension on the 2 days before charging that applies for other crime, I don't think I know a single person that supports any extension on the 28 days already permitted.

In his acceptance speech when he took over the leadership, Nick Clegg suggested (and I do believe) that most people in Britain were inherently liberal. So just who are the 65% that support this gross extension of the state's ability to "disappear" people. This is not Chile of the seventies for goodness' sake.

I've asked before, and the point was made by Shami Chakrabarti on Question Time on Thursday night with some force (she really laid into the boy Milliband to my delight!) why it is the British police and prosecution services are unable to get far enough on with their investigative work within two or four times the amount of time other countries have to charge people with something that could keep the accused on remand if necessary, with the introduction if necessary, as they do in many European jurisdictions, of post charge questioning.

I don't have the prescience to know where this country is heading, but with that 65% for one of the most egregious attacks on our civil liberties - remember we're talking about effectively disappearing people for up to six weeks without even telling them why, leaving families in limbo, probably losing the victim of the disappearing their jobs and so on, but I don't like it.

I've not left this sceptered isle for about twenty years (and then it was only a work trip to the emerald one next door) having had the travel bug knocked out of me by twenty four hour journeys to Tanzania, Kenya and Nigeria as a youngster. I don't even have a valid passport at the moment, and was content not getting one now that the intrusive questioning to get one has started, but I'm afraid I'm thinking that now I have to think about making plans for somewhere else to go when this country eventually becomes such an affront to civil liberties that I can no longer stomach being here. read more »

Save the Stoke One

Jock — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:38:59 +0100

Whilst I am sure that petty threats from a minor blogger well beyond the outskirts of the Westminster village who only leaves Headington Hill once a month to buy toiletries in Crabtree and Evelyn will cut little ice with Lib Dem party apparatchiks either in Cowley Street or the West Midlands region, I hereby pledge my support for Cllr Gavin Webb, the "Stoke One". Gavin has been suspended from the party pending a full hearing for, ostensibly at least, voicing personal opinions on liberal and libertarian issues which we both largely share.

If he is out of the party for that, then it is likely that I would be too if it weren't for the fact that I get on seemingly much better with my local party.

I am aware that Gavin has taken the decision not to be in the official Lib Dem council group at Stoke for some time, and that to some he has been a bit of a thorn in the side, but that in itself is no good reason to expel him from the party, nor, he says, has he actually been given details yet (six weeks or so after the event now) of the "charges" against him, so we can only really assume it is for the temerity of holding an opinion.

A number of fellow party members with libertarian leanings have started up a web site to support Gavin at "Save the Stoke One". Having spent my best years at school very near Stoke, I never thought I'd find anything amongst the former smoke stacks and bottle kilns to want to save! Though I distinctly remember some older school friends raving on about seeing The Clash at Victoria Hall in the early eighties! read more »

Jock on drugs...

Jock — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 15:32:07 +0100

...but if some of you arrived here because of a scurrilous Labour leaflet trying to discredit me because of my opinion on drugs issues, I wanted to settle your minds, I hope, with a synopsis of my position...

I am indeed in principle in favour of legalizing the vast majority of recreational drugs - for adults. Once legalized, their supply should be regulated, controlled through a licensing system, and taxed - which can help fund more treatment instead of prison cells. It is not the state's job to prevent adults in particular choosing to put something into their own body, or indeed, like dangerous sports and so on, what they do with their own body, if others are not harmed by that. Such laws actually remove the ability of the individual to be morally responsible for what they themselves do.

That is not to say that I want to see an increase in drugs use. Just that I believe that it is the current approach, the "war on drugs", that creates and sustains an illegal underground market that encourages people into multiple addictions and puts people into the hands of criminal suppliers who could not care less about the health of their customers so long as the money rolls in. It was recently suggested that the international trade in illicit narcotics is now the world's third largest trading sector, after I think it was financial services and energy. When heroin was legal in this country we had 18 registered addicts in the country - despite it being used in common, over the counter, drugs such as cough syrups. Make it illegal and we have seen the level of addition soar exponentially.

This is a long considered and pragmatic position, that agrees with many professionals in the fields both of law enforcement and drug treatment. Basically, that the current system, based on criminal enforcement, puts far more people in danger from drugs - it makes it easier to peddle to children, because the peddlars are unseen and uncontrolled (and sometimes children in the schoolyard themselves). It creates the core of gang and gun culture. It makes it harder to seek help when, in doing so, you have to out yourself as a criminal.

From Colombia to Croxteth, Afghanistan to the Aylesbury Estate, more people die because of the criminal networks engaged in the drugs trade than from the drugs themselves. Our politicians know this and continue to pursue the obviously failed "war on drugs" strategy because it is a populist one that's sure to get some people huffing and puffing and voting for them - don't fall for it - they are nothing short of accessories to murder! We need a mature debate about these immoral laws (any law that actually colludes in and creates the environment that breeds killings in our communities is an immoral law).

Nonetheless, as the desperate Labour party scaremongers know, my theoretical position on drugs is not one that has much relevance in the role of a city councillor, which is why we Lib Dems have decided not to rise to this astonishing personal attack, marring as it does what has been a reasonably well conducted campaign so far, and concentrate on the positive things we wish to do within the remit of the city council. I do not want any more people, and predominantly younger people as many of the victims of the current drugs system are, dying because of a populist and immoral set of laws that create more problems than they fix.

Now, perhaps you will stick around a bit and read up on my positive ideas for the pressing problems on which Oxford City Council could have an influence, such as affordable housing, and partnership working to bring a bit of business sense and community ownership into the management and development of community owned assets - in the process, I hope, giving more opportunities to people to do something fruitful with their lives and leisure time and not get onto drugs in the first place! read more »

42: Now what was the question?

Jock — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 22:07:06 +0100

I simply do not understand the government's position on the forty-two day proposal for the time a suspect can be held without charge. I saw a blog post recently, but for the life of me can't remember where, that listed the equivalent period in other western democracies. I seem to remember seeing that the next highest limit in any country is fourteen days, and that most don't have any extension beyond their normal two day period for all suspects.

Correct me if all that is crap, but assuming it's not, what is it about the UK that means that we need to allow three times the number of days anywhere else on the planet - at least anywhere that could be called a "liberal democracy"? Why should it take our police and/or intelligence services three times as long as anywhere else's to stitch enough evidence together to charge someone?

I hear all sorts of excuses - the favourite seems to be that accessing electronic information forensically takes a long time. And sometimes these sound plausible. But one has to return to the question about why should it take our people three times as long? Or is there something the raw statistics, the legal position as opposed to the way it operates in practice, do not reveal. Do other countries have fewer rights enshrined elsewhere that somehow lets them cheat and hold people for longer than their laws appear to permit?

Obviously the US has Guantanamo Bay and other "black holes" elsewhere into which people could be "disappeared". And maybe I watch too much "Spooks" but I rather assume, conspiratious that I am, that we also have extra-judicial ways of "hiding" someone if the state wants it so. Or is that just not so, and this forty-two day detention idea is really an attempt to be "above board" where other countries aren't?

The Home Office's own figures show that 1165 people have been arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 (admittedly that probably includes Walter Wolfgang and similar instances of overenthusiastic enforcement), more than half of them released without charge and only forty one convictions so far on Terrorism Act charges. The majority of the rest have been charged with something, presumably without breaching the existing, already too long, twenty eight days.

Just someone explain the rationale of forty two days, please!

Offending overseas and the PNC

Jock — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:43:18 +0000

There's been a big fuss about people who have been convicted of things overseas not being put onto the Police National Computer in a timely fashion. And the Sex Offenders Register. And something worries me about the almost inevitable media and Westminster village feeding frenzy on this.

I read a couple of weeks ago a story about a seventeen year old boy in Georgia, admittedly a US citizen but there's no telling who else it might happen to, who has been given a ten year prison term with no possibility of parole and a life time's entry on the US sex offenders register or its equivalent for being fellated by a fifteen year old girl at a party they were both at. read more »