Another brick in the wall

Here is yet another truly sinister piece of proposed UK legislation and it goes to show that it is not just Labour who has little concern for citizens rights.

Tory Lord Moynihan has drawn up a draft Bill to give the police powers to search for performance enhancing drugs.

His ostensible reason, he claims, is to help prevent Olympic athletes cheating with performance enhancing drugs come the 2012 Olympics.

This sounds almost acceptable - if you are the sort of person who does not bother to to think to closely about these things.

The first thing to consider about any legislation is how it might go wrong because it has been poorly drafted.

It is unlikely the bill will be able to distinguish between ordinary citizens and athletes, let alone Olympians.

Also this relates not to so-called illegal drugs whatever you consider the merits or otherwise of prohibition. This relates to drugs which it may be perfectly legal to posess, may even be medically necessary for some conditions, but that also may enhance athletic performance.

My elderly mother is on steroids of some sort. She is therefore certainly in possession of what might be considered “performance enhancing drugs”.

The second thing is to ignore the claimed reason for it and consider what powers it will actually give to the state and it’s increasingly politicised police ‘service’.

You can be absolutely certain, whatever the ostensible reason for the additional powers, the police, or anyone else given them, will be using them to the fullest extent that is possible.

If you doubt this you only have to look at the lawful, but effectively misuse, of legislation that has resulted in the police harassing innocent photographers.

Or the violent ejection of an elderly Labour Party conference attendee from Conference when he made the mistake of criticising the Government.

Or the hundreds of incidences of local councils misusing anti terrorist legislation to spy on people’s refuse bin use, or where they live.

So what will this proposed piece of authoritarian legislation do? Apparently it will allow the police to raid a place of residence, for no better reason than to seize perfectly legal (if performance enhancing) drugs.

Another significant chunk of your and my right to live unmolested by an increasingly authoritarian state being gradually and stealthily stolen away while you don’t notice - and it is just too much bother to make a fuss over such a small thing.

Why this time? For the truly world shattering and absolute necessity to make it a little bit more difficult to cheat at sports. Even if it were instead supposed to save lives it might be a price too high to pay

You should be concerned. Don’t just sit there. Take 5 minutes to actually do something. Complain to your MP. It is easy and completely free, just go to the ‘They work for you’ site. Enter your post code plus a few details and the site will forward your note to your MP.

If you can’t think of how to put your objection then just paste this in:

Dear Sir/Madam/etc.,

I am writing to you as my MP, my representative in Parliament to make you aware of my strong objections to Lord Moynihan’s draft bill that proposes to give the police powers to search residences for, otherwise legal drugs, that enhance athletic performance in time for the 2012 London Olympics.

Even with safeguards this legislation poses a great risk to our rights and liberties. It is a case of the proverbial hammer being used to crack the nut. All in the name of sports.

Many people require these so-called “performance enhancing” drugs on a daily basis for their health. Such legislation could theoretically mean police would have the power to search the homes of many people who have nothing to do with the Olympics.

We have seen a number of recent instances where other supposedly laudable, but draconian, legislation has effectively been trivially misused in ways we were assured would never occur when the legislation was passed, take the matter of councils spying in on household refuse for but one instance. I am sure like the rest of us you must be well aware of others.

If these powers are granted they will inevitably be used and more.

Can you please advise me, in clear language, weather you intend to represent me, my views and oppose this legislation, or not.

Thank you for your time, I look forward to your reply.

yours faithfully

#your name here#

Repent at leisure?

Apparently the Government are going to rush through legislation to ensure there will never be another “Baby P” case.

Ed Balls the “Children's Secretary” is planning to put forward legislation make local services more accountable forcing them to chart their progress in intervening at an early stage.

Now any right thinking individual would wish to prevent any such dreadful thing ever happening again. But one fears hurried I’ll considered legislation is not the solution.

It is almost certain there is perfectly effective legislation already in place that would be adequate to the purpose - if only it had been used. Similarly there was an enquiry after the last dreadful failure of Harringay Council with Victoria Climbié. An enquiry made recommendations, were they ever actually implemented properly? Were all existing guide rules adhered to?

One suspects not.

The last thing this country needs is yet another piece of New Labour legislation that only does what other legislation, if actually enforced, already does, or invents new subdivisions of existing offences.

You can be sure it will not be any better and will almost certainly eventually be found to have unexpected and detrimental consequences, in this case probably to ordinary families.

Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC) observed “Haste in every business brings failures.” This seems to have entirely escaped the attention of the current government, with their hatred of any history not post 1945 and not spun.

Good times to bury unwanted stories

Hasn’t it been a really good time to bury bad news recently…

The political equivalent of building a new overpass with lots of concrete.

Amid all the blanket reporting of the problems with the banking system and stock markets globally the MSM have had such a problem paying attention to things like the New Labour State’s obsessive desire to control and spy on it’s own Citizens.

Even 24hr news channels only seem able to find room for one or two story lines, repeated endlessly, or they cut to an empty podium and talk rubbish waiting for a speech. God forbid they should actually report a wider variety of news.

So the leopard does not change it’s spots. New Labour does not trust the citizen. It apparently does not believe the average citizen is capable enough adult enough to run their own lives and affairs.

They cannot be trusted, they need to be kept safe from the malice of others and their own stupidity. They even need to be told what they can eat and drink.

They need a patrician socialist class to govern every aspect of their lives… And if they object then doesn’t that show how foolish and irresponsible they are?

The silly citizen has a foolish traditional belief in their hard one ancient rights and liberties, but these just get in the way of shiny new legislation that the state needs to protect itself and it’s interests the public.

There is little that can be does to amend this pernicious attitude. New Labour need to be removed from power for a generation to contemplate the error of their thinking and the ripe contempt they apparently hold the citizen in. It would appear that this sort of medicine can work, ask David Cameron…

Another day, another New Labour Governemnt Database

The Nanny state, apparently deeply concerned that it is leaving us any privacy at all, is now turning it’s attention to the creation of a newsuper database to record when we make phone calls, or send emails and who to, oh and all the web sites we visit.

Of course this is purely ‘for our own good’, to protect us all from terrorism. That catchall ‘bogeyman’ excuse of the Authoritarian state, ‘protecting the citizen from the terrorist and criminal’. The same citizen that the State will not permit to defend themselves against criminals with the frequently used threat of prosecution hanging over them if they do.

A Home Office spokesman disingenuously attempted to claim that: "Changes to the way we communicate, due particularly to the internet revolution, will increasingly undermine our current capabilities to obtain communications data - essential for counter-terrorism and the investigation of crime - and use it to protect the public.

Now as far as I know it is still possible for the authorities to tap phone conversations and intercept post, within the law. They do not currently have a database of all letters sent and to whom as far as I am aware. Nor have they ever had one.

So when the spokes person claimed:"Losing the ability to use this data would have very serious consequences for law enforcement and intelligence gathering in the UK." it did not follow logically at all.

The simple fact is that the state already has access to this and more, such as emails and web useage if they suspect someone. It is going too far to monitor us all.
And we all know the State can be trusted to look after this information and not loose it on a bus, or sell it, or something.

And we all know just how much the promise of the State is worth when they say they will only use legislation only for the purpose it was framed.

...Or maybe we could ask Islandic banks about how anti terrorism legislation was recently limbered up ready to be used to freeze Islandic funds in the UK. Or how other legislation was used to silence and eject hecklers from a Labour party conference.

Is the UK state just too big?

Is it too big? If you have visited this blog in the past then my opinion will be quite clear to you - Of course it is..

This article By Iain Martin in the Telegraph examines the matter intelligently and is well worth a read.

Time to roll back the state.

Harriet Harman plans to make it illegal to pay for sex in the UK

Why is it with our current government that if there is bad way of doing something, amongst a host of other choices, they will inevitably make a beeline for it - and then compound the problem with incompetence.

Harriet Harman is at it again. Last heard of in connection with concealed donations. This time she wants to make it illegal to pay for sex. Her motives would appear to be reasonably honest, but her reasoning is certainly open to question.

Firstly you can pass as many laws as you like (and New-Labour frequently abuse this privilege) - but that won’t stop it happening if it is something people refuse to give up, or want regardless of the consequences. All you do is bring the idea of the law into disrepute and leave whatever it is you are legislating in the hands of criminals.

Take prohibition in the US – It is arguable that absolutely made organised crime in the US and effectively criminalised vast swathes of the otherwise law-abiding population. It failed and left a detrimental legacy felt to this day.

The ‘War on Drugs’ that is obviously highly effective. It has clrearly absolutely eradicated cannabis use in the UK – Not!.

Illegal drugs are even more lucrative than legal ones and almost certainly maintain an increased level of real crime to support habits. More to the point the illegality of it sucks people who are tying to deal with a habit into a world of crime that they might otherwise never have become involved with.

So paying for sex. How will you define it? What exactly is payment? Cash? Payment in kind?

When all is said and done under the ‘moral questions’ it is a ‘service industry’. The government should be more interested in protecting those who provide sex for money, ensuring that they aren’t forced to, that they will be reasonably safe and able to complain to the police if they are abused. That it can’t be concealed in the shadows.

The English Collective of Prostitutes are certainly not in favour of Harriet’s crusade/jihad. Their spokes woman pointed out that forcing prostitution further underground would only make women more vulnerable to violence.

With this government the first reaction always seems to be towards thoughtless reflexive additional ill-conceived legislation, with little or no consideration of the likely consequences - and a sound bite to go with it, to attempt to justify their existence.

Animal rights activists forced to hand over computer passwords

Now I don’t normally have much time for animal rights activists. Many of them seem to be more like people haters, than animal lovers.

However Tom Pain’s quote serendipitously posted yesterday eloquently points out why I and everybody else, should be concerned about their rights.

Earlier this month, some 30 animal rights activists are reported to have received letters from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in Hampshire requesting they hand over the passwords to decrypt data on seized computers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA).

The PCs were seized in raids carried out in May 2007. Section 49, covering demanding keys only came into law on 1 October 2007, so presumably the authorities held onto the machines until they could use the Act and didn’t expect the activists would garner much sympathy in any case.

This Act effectively removes the right of silence from anyone who has something intensely private, or incriminating in any way on their computer, even if it is nothing to do with what is being investigated. It effectively forces a person to incriminate themselves and lays them open to a ‘fishing expedition’ on pain of two years imprisonment.

Another possibly even more disturbing part of the Act is section 54, a gagging order preventing the recipient telling anyone about the demand, thus presumably preventing them from making a fuss about it.

Putting recipients of the order in a similar position families who have had their children taken by social services who are gagged from defending themselves or complaining.

Not only that, it prevents anyone else, who subsequently may become aware of it telling anyone. In this case no such order was made, but if it had been it would presumably be an offence for the BBC to report on it or indeed for me to post on it.

The state will argue that they need these draconian powers to protect us from Terrorists, Paedophiles and Serious Crime. Is it really worth paying the price of seeing our freedom and rights eroded away by the state, piece by piece, to gain a marginal and possibly illusory increase in physical security?

Folks it’s not just the Terrorists, etc. you need to be afraid of…

Government advisors say cohabitees should get same rights as married couples

Couples who live together should have the same property rights as married couples if they separate according to advice drawn up by Exeter University academics for the UK Ministry of Justice.

Doesn’t that sound grand (in a deep resonant voice) “Ministry of Justice”… It conjures up images of steely eyed agents bringing UK crime to it’s collective knees doesn’t it?

Back on topic - It seems the Law Commission may be coming up with something similar. The only trouble is the recommendations don’t seem to consider how long a couple must cohabit before the rights apply…

Firstly, if a cohabiting couple want the same rights as a married couple then they can get them right now, just by getting married. One of it’s main social functions for millennia has been to regulate property rights.

Secondly, if the 'marriage thing' does not float your boat, a couple could always enter into a legal contract, again something they could do right now. If the Government cared to they could arrange for a simple contractual registration scheme as an alternative to state marriages that could be treated the same as marriage legally.

If the Government really feels the need to interfere in peoples private relationships, that have nothing to do with Government, then most people would probably feel at least two years cohabitation would be a reasonable period before any such ‘rights’ kicked in.

Otherwise you could end up with someone staying for a few weeks at someone else’s flat and then claiming half the owner’s worldly goods.

Better still, if the Government just practiced the art of making a little less legislation - rather than continually trying to come up with a law for every possible combination of circumstances.

To paraphrase the saying - Make love, not legislation Gordon…

New Licence law harms small gigs

The UK Government (surprise surprise) brought in new laws in 2005, introducing a single licence covering entertainment and alcohol, aimed at easing restrictions on live music.

Where would the law of unintended consequences be without good old Nu-Lab and their constant regulating and meddling.

The Live Music Forum is complaining that small local venues staging acoustic concerts are being put at risk by the new licensing laws and should be exempt from the regulations.

The forum, set up by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, recommended that acoustic performances and performances that are not the main attraction at a venue should be exempt from licensing.

Without unknown bands playing at small gigs you will eventually run out of more successful groups, as they will find it much more difficult to ever develop in the numbers we are used to. What will that do to the music industry, or the aspirations of young hopefuls.

Apparently in one instance a brass band was told it could only perform religious songs if their performance was for charity. They were told they needed to apply for a licence which would cost more than they actually expected to raise.

There was also a case where a pub landlady was told she must obtain a variation in her licence so regular gatherings of a group of elderly men who sang folk songs together could continue.

Licensing minister Gerry Sutcliffe welcomed the "interesting and challenging" findings. Oh-Oh - weasel words alert!

He continued: "We will now look at each of the recommendations, discuss with stakeholders and will respond fully in due course." Why do politicians talk like this? To avoid actually saying anything at all? To avoid committing themselves to anything.

Why can’t they say something like: “From what you say, it does sound as if things are not quite working as we had intended. Give me the report and I’ll look into it to see if it can be improved. “?