This website has been up and running for just over five years now, a long time in the world of the internet. It started with the small, annoying things in life - women drivers who don't express any thanks when you give way to them, those ridiculous car-stickers that say "baby on board"* and "show dogs in transit", recycling schemes that differ from one council to another and confuse us all, whether Robert Kilroy-Silk actually exists (or is he just a clever hoax?), schoolboys being prosecuted for feeding a chip to a seagull, the great myth of women's ability to multi-task (which simply means doing lots of things, none of them properly) and so on.
However, certain themes quickly established themselves as regulars. One was the environment, and the great hoax that is man-made Global Warming. And another was the rising tide of legislation aimed at curbing our freedoms and subjecting us to constant and pervasive surveillance. We even have a sneaky feeling we may have invented the phrase "Stasi Britain".
We take, therefore, a certain amount of satisfaction from the fact that more and more commentators, politicians and journalists are speaking out on our Big Brother state. Now comes an even more astonishing revelation: even the heads of our security services are worried that the activities of a small number of vicious zealots are allowing an authoritarian government to "justify" all kinds of new laws that can have little effect on anyone except the law-abiding public of this country. The mantra "if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear" has worn pretty thin already, and when a former Head of MI5 is driven to speak out against excessive legislation you can assume that there really is a problem, and that it doesn't concern shady Iranians, Pakistanis and Afghans with a knapsack full of weed-killer, but the equally shady (and equally incompetent) mandarins in Whitehall and Westminster.
Dame Stella Rimington, the first-ever woman Head of MI5, has told a Spanish newspaper that Labour is cynically exploiting the public's fear of terrorism (supposed fear, that is: personally I don't see anyone looking particularly frightened in Tesco on a Saturday morning) and is turning Britain into a 'police state'. She warns that the Government's erosion of civil liberties simply plays into the hands of terrorists.
In a hard-hitting interview, Dame Stella warned: "Since I have retired I feel more at liberty to be against certain decisions of the government, especially the attempt to pass laws which interfere with people's privacy. It would be better that the government recognised that there are risks, rather than frightening people in order to be able to pass laws which restrict civil liberties, precisely one of the objects of terrorism: that we live in fear and under a police state."
Her attack coincides the report by a powerful panel of lawyers and judges that the UK's anti-terror laws are illegal and counterproductive. A three-year study by the International Commission of Jurists also warned that Governments were using the public's fear of terrorism to introduce measures such as detention with trial, illegal disappearance and torture. Last week, a powerful committee of Lords also demanded a drastic curtailing of the state's 'Big Brother' surveillance powers**.
Dame Stella's intervention is particularly embarrassing for the Government as she has extensive first-hand experience of dealing with terror-related intelligence. In 2005 she warned that Identity Cards would be "absolutely useless" unless they could be made unforgeable. She said she did not believe her former agency was pressing for their introduction. She has also criticised Tony Blair's claims that the war in Iraq did not radicalise Muslim youth in the UK, and is highly critical of the US policy of detaining and torturing terror suspects.
Her comments this week have been backed by opposition MPs and civil rights groups. Shadow security minister Dame Pauline Neville-Jones said: 'Stella Rimington is right to argue that security measures must be proportionate and adhere to the rule of law. The Government has presided over an erosion of our civil liberties. A Conservative Government will clean up anti-terrorist legislation to stop it being misused against ordinary people. Ultimately, to address the terrorist threat and safeguard our liberties, we need to build a cohesive society in which we trust each other rather than looking to the state to protect us from each other.'
Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said: 'Dame Stella is absolutely right to warn that the erosion of civil liberties merely reduces us to the same level and moral standing as the terrorists, which is precisely what they want. We must never become what we are fighting. As soon as we lose the high ground we begin to lose the fight against terrorism, as we horribly proved with the internment of the innocent in Northern Ireland.'
However, holding the moral high ground - which we and Dame Stella and Huhne and Neville-Jones do - is little use when we are faced with an entrenched and completely intransigent government whose supporters in Parliament are so scared of losing their own cushy jobs and expense accounts that they'll flock to the "Aye!" lobby without a moment's thought. The government's relentless march towards total state control of our every waking moment just rolls on, unstoppable.
As James Slack pointed out this week …
"For rank hypocrisy, look no further than the Government's inconceivable decision to make it a criminal offence - punishable with a jail term of up to 10 years - to take a picture of a policeman.
Everywhere we go, the police - under instruction from Ministers - are watching our every move. There are more than four million CCTV cameras in the UK, the largest number in the world. Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras follow our every car journey, and officers are now routinely deployed at major public gatherings with cameras on their helmets.
Police are even beginning to insist that pubs - as a condition of being granted a licence - install CCTV cameras to watch their regulars having a drink. Indeed, some pubs are even being told to ban their customers from wearing hats, in case it makes identification by these cameras more difficult - thus the extraordinary situation of Yorkshiremen being told it is no longer acceptable to wear a flat cap to their local pub!
Our movements are also being tracked using our genetic fingerprints, long after we have left the scene. Hundreds of thousands of people never convicted of any offence now have their DNA stored on the Government's Big Brother database - the largest in the world. If you're one of the unlucky people to be in this situation, you will have a whole lot of explaining to do should your DNA turn up on a glass found in a bar which (hours after you had departed) was the scene of a violent attack or rape."
(As our science correspondent pointed out recently, unlike fingerprints DNA is transported from place to place with the greatest of ease. You only have to sit in someone's living room for a while to get their DNA liberally splattered over your clothes, and before you know it there will be traces in your car, in your home, in your office, everywhere you go - GOS)
"Yet do the police (or at least their Government masters) mind us watching them in return? Absolutely. That would never do. Hence the new law - Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act - which has come into force.
It permits the arrest of anyone found 'eliciting, publishing or communicating information' relating to members of the armed forces, intelligence services and police officers, which is 'likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'.
That, apparently, covers anyone taking a photograph of any of these groups of people.
The maximum ten year jail terms shows the Government means business. A burglar or robber certainly wouldn't get such a sentence in a world where - for crimes which genuinely do matter to the public - soft justice reigns supreme.
According to the police, it is a lengthy sentence because it is a serious crime. The Metropolitan Police insisted the law was intended to protect counter-terrorism officers from being identified in the line of duty, thereby putting their lives at risk. But it is completely disproportionate to pass a law which, at least in theory, could lead to the arrest of a tourist snapping a police officer stood in front of Big Ben.
Police insist that will not be the case, and that prosecutions will only take place in the public interest. But just tell that to the trainspotters who were offered similar guarantees about the introduction of blanket stop and search powers. The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2000 has been used to stop a staggering 62,584 people at railway stations. Another 87,000 were questioned under separate 'stop and search' and 'stop and account' legislation.
One schoolboy was even held as a terror suspect for taking photographs of a railway station during a school geography field trip. Fabian Sabbara, 15, was dressed in the uniform of Rutlish High School in Merton, South London, when he was stopped at nearby Wimbledon station by three police community support officers.
PCSO Barry Reeve told Fabian, from nearby Cheam, to sign forms under Section 44 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The teenager was forced to comply or face arrest.
You can bet your bottom dollar some innocent tourist with a camera will suffer a similar fate to poor Fabian.
There's also the not inconsiderable fact it will make it very hard for Press photographers to record legitimate protests, given the heavy presence of police on the streets at any modern day rally. It will also prevent those protesters who fear heavy-handed tactics from filming the police's response, as is currently commonplace.
Of course, we should not be surprised that the defence for this latest draconian step is counter-terrorism. That has proved the justification for some of the worst excesses of the Labour Government - the right for councils to snoop on dog foulers and parents suspected of cheating school catchment rules stems from the anti-terror Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.
But that does not mean Ministers and the police should be allowed to get away with it. The watchers must be prepared to be watched themselves."
He's absolutely right, of course. Assurances that a new law will only be used for such-and-such a purpose aren't worth the paper they're written on or the hot air that wafts them into the atmosphere. No matter how lofty the intent, every law that has ever been passed will sooner or later be used, and we know from bitter experience that vicious petty officials will seize any tool that helps them carve out their own little empires, chanting "It's our responsibility so that means we can do anything we like".
If there's a law that says you can't park on a double yellow line, some unpleasant, narrow-minded little gauleiter will enforce it even if you happen to be an ambulance-driver attending an emergency, or a mother ministering to her child in the middle of a potentially-fatal asthma attack - and yes, both of these happened in the last few months. One traffic warden even gave a ticket to the driver of a bus for stopping at a bus-stop.
If there's a law that permits local councils to secretly follow, watch and photograph members of the public, they'll do it, even if all they're investigating is a child attending a school out of catchment, or a householder putting his bin out the night before. And yes, that happened too.
If there's a law that a parent who's suspected of harming his or her children can have those children taken away, then taken away they will be - even if there is almost no evidence against them, and even if they are eventually cleared of all wrong-doing. They'll never get their kids back, either.
Science fiction fans in the 1950s used to talk about something called Finagle's Constant, a law that said "the entropy of the universe tends towards infinity". In a nutshell, this just means "If a thing can go wrong, it will" - and there are rank upon rank of lawyers, policemen, teachers, inspectors, civil servants, local government officers and council wardens to make sure it does, each intent on wielding his own little bit of power, each hiding behind "I am only doing my job". The difference between them and the guards in the Nazi concentration camps is only one of degree; the quantity may be much less but the quality is the same.
A measure of just how bad things have become is that they're beginning to notice it on the other side of the Atlantic, in a country that is not known for the depth of its understanding of other cultures. The commentator J.D.Tuccille writes …
"In years to come, those of us mourning the erosion of liberty in America will probably turn to each other from time to time and sigh, "It could be worse; we could be British." Actually, we can do that right now. Maybe it's something in the water over there, but the government of the UK seems to have watched the former Bush administration's abuses of due process and privacy (and the Obama administration's "nothing to see here" attitude toward maintaining much of the same), sneered "pikers," and set about to show the world how a democracy is really turned into a police state.
Things like this rarely happen over night, and sure enough, Britain's descent into the world of V for Vendetta has been building for a long time. There have been creeping restrictions on free speech, closed-circuit TV cameras on every corner, national ID cards on the way, and the like for many years.
But over the past two weeks ... well, let's just look, shall we?
The Daily Mail reports: A secret police intelligence unit has been set up to spy on Left-wing and Right-wing political groups. The Confidential Intelligence Unit (CIU) has the power to operate across the UK and will mount surveillance and run informers on 'domestic extremists'.
Its job is to build up a detailed picture of radical campaigners. Targets will include environmental groups involved in direct action such as Plane Stupid, whose supporters invaded the runway at Stansted Airport in December.
The unit also aims to identify the ring-leaders behind violent demonstrations such as the recent anti-Israel protests in London, and to infiltrate neo-Nazi groups, animal liberation groups and organisations behind unlawful industrial action such as secondary picketing.
The paper based its report on "[a]n internal police job advertisement," and it didn't take that much effort to find an expired (but still cached) relevant job listing at Experteer.co.uk …
Head of Confidential Intelligence Unit (CIU) National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU)
City London
Career Level Senior Manager / Head of Department
Industry Public Sector/Public Authority, Local Government, State/Internal Security, National Security
Job Description Organisation: ACPO Business Area: Terrorism and Allied Matters
Job Title: Head of Confidential Intelligence Unit (CIU) National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU)
Rank: Detective Chief Inspector
Reports to: D/Supt Head of NPOIU
Salary: Chief Inspector range + allowances
Type: Full time police officer
Location: London
Main purpose of Role: To manage the covert intelligence function for domestic extremism, and the confidential intelligence unit. The post carries membership of NPOIU Senior Management Team and you will be expected to make a significant contribution to the overall performance of the police service of England and Wales
Rather chillingly, The Daily Mail reports "The CIU will also use legal proceedings to prevent details of its operations being made public."
Britain like the U.S. has a history of such domestic spying, and it always ends badly. Intelligence units tasked with watching terrorists inevitably include mere radicals among their targets, then simple political protesters and, ultimately, pretty much anybody who says something critical about the government. Among the past targets in the UK of domestic surveillance were Ewan MacColl, a Pete Seeger-ish folk singer with communist sympathies, John Lennon, and the band UB40.
Then there's The Daily Telegraph's report that pending legislation would allow just about every governing body in the UK to see who is communicating with whom, and how often. Towns halls, along with police, security services and other public bodies will be able to view "communications" details of any one suspected of crime.
But critics fear the move will simply pave the way for authorities to spy on millions of citizens and taxpayers. Bodies will not be allowed to see the content of communications but will have access to data such as who was called or texted and when or which websites were visited. Since 2007, phone companies have had to retain data about calls for 12 months and hand it over to more than 650 public bodies.
Parliament approved the powers, described as a vital tool against terrorism, under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. But under the latest order that is to be extended to all communications, including the internet.
The move appears to be a revival of an effort to extend electronic surveillance powers that was shelved amidst public fury back in 2002. At the time, press reports described the retreat as "a humiliating climbdown," but the state is nothing if not patient.
Speculation at the time was that the government was dissuaded as much by technical hurdles as by widespread resistance. The new bill suggests that technology has advanced enough in seven years to make the surveillance scheme more feasible.
And electronic surveillance is at least as popular with British authorities as with their American counterparts. The European Court of Human Rights ruled last summer that the UK government went too far with its years-long wiretapping of civil rights groups.
If you were planning to keep tabs on the domestic snoops and wiretappers in Britain, don't plan on including photographs in your files. Taking snapshots of police officers is about to become a serious crime. According to the British Journal of Photography:
Set to become law on 16 February, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 amends the Terrorism Act 2000 regarding offences relating to information about members of armed forces, a member of the intelligence services, or a police officer.
The new set of rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act, will target anyone who 'elicits or attempts to elicit information about [members of armed forces] … which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'.
A person found guilty of this offence could be liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years, and to a fine.
The law is expected to increase the anti-terrorism powers used today by police officers to stop photographers, including press photographers, from taking pictures in public places.
The Home Office doesn't deny the possible application of the new law to photographers, saying that interpretation will be up to police and the courts.
Even before the new law, photographers have been challenged in Britain (as in America) by police officers unhappy about being the target of a lens. Last year, photographer Lawrence Looi was forced to delete images from his memory card by a police sergeant, and Andrew Carter was actually dragged off to jail for a similar "offence." Such incidents are bound to increase when police officers can point to new legal authority.
I'd like to say that's it, but it's not. There's the small matter of the creeping national ID program in the UK. And then Dutch rabble-rousing politician Geert Wilders was detained at Heathrow airport before being ejected from the country for his political views.
After years of depressing civil liberties violations here in the United States, it's astonishing to be able to say that the UK makes America look good. Just what kind of country is the British government trying to create? And is it time to break out those Guy Fawkes masks?"
The GOS says: I dare say some people will think it's over the top and disrespectful to use the Auschwitz "Arbeit macht frei" picture on this page. All I can say is that I disagree. The generation before mine went through a war. They thought things like this could never happen again.
They could be wrong. Maybe it's started.
"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death … How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think … The party should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master!" - Adolf Hitler
* "Baby on board" stickers: we recently heard the first sensible reson for having one of these in your car. In a car crash in America, police searching the wreckage missed a small baby and he was subsequently found uninjured, but frozen to death. There's NO excuse for advertising "Show dogs in transit", though.
** On Friday, 6th February the House of Lords Constitution Committee published the final report of their Surveillance and Data Collection Inquiry. The committee is critical of unwarranted surveillance and data loss and lays out 44 recommendations. One recommendation is that "the Government should undertake an analysis of public consultations and their effectiveness, and should explore opportunities for applying versions of the Citizens' Inquiry technique to surveillance and data processing initiatives involving databases". Another recommendation relating to the National DNA database (NDNAD) suggests that "the Government introduce a bill to replace the existing regulatory framework, providing an opportunity to reassess the rules on the length of time for which DNA profiles are retained, and to provide regulatory oversight of the NDNAD".
The report can be read/downloaded here.
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
Copyright © 2009 The GOS
This site created and maintained by PlainSite