National security: The mantra of all tyrants
The Home Office Minister assured the House that the orders could only be approved by designated senior officials and there would be regular checks to ensure the new powers were not abused. She said: 'These proposals are about vital investigatory tools being used now to prevent and detect crime and save lives.' No, not Jacqui Smith shmoozing Labour MPs this week into supporting the Government's proposals to raise the period terror suspects can be detained without trial to 42 days. This was Caroline Flint, back in 2003, dismissing concerns that David Blunkett's decision to allow 500 public bodies to access our e-mails and tap our phones was a Snooper's Charter. 'We need to ensure that we strike the right balance between the privacy of the citizen and the need to investigate crime and protect the public. I believe that the new order achieves that balance.' A Home Office spokesman reinforced her guarantee that there would be no widespread eavesdropping and no invasion of our privacy, except in the most extreme circumstances. Indeed, far from widening the net, it would provide a 'statutory framework imposing further restrictions' on the ability of government agencies and councils to mount surveillance operations. 'The new measures set out restrictions on the data which organisations can get; states that only senior people will be allowed access and specifies the reason for collating this data - the prevention and detection of crime. The content of conversations or e-mails will still be subject to a warrant,' the spokesman added. The clarification was necessary following the passing of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act two years earlier. This was intended to be used only in pursuit of serious crime or 'in the interests of national security'. We could all sleep soundly in our beds. But as the Mail revealed yesterday 152 councils have admitted routinely using these powers to spy on thousands of people suspected of piffling offences, such as dog fouling and storing petrol without a licence. Even more reprehensibly, the innocent have no right to know they have been spied upon. We were already aware that under the provisions of the act, local authorities had mounted MI5-style surveillance operations against parents suspected of trying to get their children into a school outside the catchment area, as well as a man leaving his car in a disabled parking space. These weren't isolated incidents. Under a Freedom of Information request, it turns out only 31 out of those councils who responded have not used these powers to investigate such heinous crimes as people putting their rubbish out on the wrong day. Phones are regularly bugged and e-mails intercepted on the say-so of middle-ranking council officers. So much for the assurance that: 'The contents of conversations or e-mail will still be subject to a warrant.' Not only are councils using these powers, they are exceeding them. As I've argued consistently, if you give these tinpot nazis any authority, they will always, always, always abuse it. I don't believe for a moment that warrants from a magistrate have been obtained in all these cases. So why aren't those responsible for this monstrous violation of office themselves-being prosecuted, since they are clearly breaking the law? Under Labour, local councils have been transformed from relatively benign bodies charged with emptying the dustbins and sweeping the streets into branches of the Stasi. There's even a plan to scrap council tax and replace it with a local income tax. It's found favour with some residents who think they are paying more than their fair share. But ask yourself this: do you really want Town Hall Trots trawling through your bank statements and income tax returns? As the Harry Enfield character used to say: 'Is that what you want? Because that's what's gonna happen.' Bear all this in mind when you hear Jacqui Smith trying to soothe fears over 42-day detention without trial. This week she was wheeling out all the usual platitudes - extreme circumstances, triple-lock, checks and balances, parliamentary review, senior judges, etc, etc. About the only thing she didn't say was: if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear - like 'national security' the mantra of the tyrant down the ages. It looks as if she may have swung it, largely because Labour MPs are reluctant to deliver yet another body blow to an already reeling Gordon Brown, who has pinned his ragged colours to this splintered mast, even though there's not a shred of convincing evidence to support it. And so another of our ancient liberties goes up in flames on the bonfire of political vanity. If and when it becomes law, the assorted checks and balances will prove to be utterly worthless and it will end up being used not in exceptional circumstances to deal with the most dangerous suspects, but as a matter of routine and bureaucratic convenience. How long before some zealous local council official designates the unauthorised storing of petrol as a matter of national security and some hapless Pakistani go-karting enthusiast is dragged off to Belmarsh for 42 days? Be afraid, be very afraid. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1024579/National-security-The-mantra-tyrants.html
The Home Office Minister assured the House that the orders could only be approved by designated senior officials and there would be regular checks to ensure the new powers were not abused. She said: 'These proposals are about vital investigatory tools being used now to prevent and detect crime and save lives.' No, not Jacqui Smith shmoozing Labour MPs this week into supporting the Government's proposals to raise the period terror suspects can be detained without trial to 42 days. This was Caroline Flint, back in 2003, dismissing concerns that David Blunkett's decision to allow 500 public bodies to access our e-mails and tap our phones was a Snooper's Charter. 'We need to ensure that we strike the right balance between the privacy of the citizen and the need to investigate crime and protect the public. I believe that the new order achieves that balance.' A Home Office spokesman reinforced her guarantee that there would be no widespread eavesdropping and no invasion of our privacy, except in the most extreme circumstances. Indeed, far from widening the net, it would provide a 'statutory framework imposing further restrictions' on the ability of government agencies and councils to mount surveillance operations. 'The new measures set out restrictions on the data which organisations can get; states that only senior people will be allowed access and specifies the reason for collating this data - the prevention and detection of crime. The content of conversations or e-mails will still be subject to a warrant,' the spokesman added. The clarification was necessary following the passing of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act two years earlier. This was intended to be used only in pursuit of serious crime or 'in the interests of national security'. We could all sleep soundly in our beds. But as the Mail revealed yesterday 152 councils have admitted routinely using these powers to spy on thousands of people suspected of piffling offences, such as dog fouling and storing petrol without a licence. Even more reprehensibly, the innocent have no right to know they have been spied upon. We were already aware that under the provisions of the act, local authorities had mounted MI5-style surveillance operations against parents suspected of trying to get their children into a school outside the catchment area, as well as a man leaving his car in a disabled parking space. These weren't isolated incidents. Under a Freedom of Information request, it turns out only 31 out of those councils who responded have not used these powers to investigate such heinous crimes as people putting their rubbish out on the wrong day. Phones are regularly bugged and e-mails intercepted on the say-so of middle-ranking council officers. So much for the assurance that: 'The contents of conversations or e-mail will still be subject to a warrant.' Not only are councils using these powers, they are exceeding them. As I've argued consistently, if you give these tinpot nazis any authority, they will always, always, always abuse it. I don't believe for a moment that warrants from a magistrate have been obtained in all these cases. So why aren't those responsible for this monstrous violation of office themselves-being prosecuted, since they are clearly breaking the law? Under Labour, local councils have been transformed from relatively benign bodies charged with emptying the dustbins and sweeping the streets into branches of the Stasi. There's even a plan to scrap council tax and replace it with a local income tax. It's found favour with some residents who think they are paying more than their fair share. But ask yourself this: do you really want Town Hall Trots trawling through your bank statements and income tax returns? As the Harry Enfield character used to say: 'Is that what you want? Because that's what's gonna happen.' Bear all this in mind when you hear Jacqui Smith trying to soothe fears over 42-day detention without trial. This week she was wheeling out all the usual platitudes - extreme circumstances, triple-lock, checks and balances, parliamentary review, senior judges, etc, etc. About the only thing she didn't say was: if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear - like 'national security' the mantra of the tyrant down the ages. It looks as if she may have swung it, largely because Labour MPs are reluctant to deliver yet another body blow to an already reeling Gordon Brown, who has pinned his ragged colours to this splintered mast, even though there's not a shred of convincing evidence to support it. And so another of our ancient liberties goes up in flames on the bonfire of political vanity. If and when it becomes law, the assorted checks and balances will prove to be utterly worthless and it will end up being used not in exceptional circumstances to deal with the most dangerous suspects, but as a matter of routine and bureaucratic convenience. How long before some zealous local council official designates the unauthorised storing of petrol as a matter of national security and some hapless Pakistani go-karting enthusiast is dragged off to Belmarsh for 42 days? Be afraid, be very afraid. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1024579/National-security-The-mantra-tyrants.html