Not So "Quick"-witted of the Yard

Less haste more heed may well be the lesson learnt by Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick today. This morning he exited a car in Downing Street carry plans for an anti-terrorism raid. This evening, after the top sheet was photographed clearly giving far too much information, 10 suspects were arrested in raids.

The obvious conclusion to be drawn was that Quick was entering Downing Street to brief on the plans that were captured. However, as the details on the agency photograph were zoomed across the world the raid and arrests were moved up in Liverpool, Manchester and Lancashire. Evening raids of this sort are unusual so it is highly likely that as a result of the slow-wittedness and hasty exit of Quick from that car this operation was put under risk if it wasn't proceeded with immediately.

Whether the police were ready to make these arrests at this time we will no doubt find out if the suspects are in fact held. If they were still gathering information in preparation for it and were maybe waiting for some final piece to slot into place before going in, may well mean that what they could take is what had to be taken.

In a bad few days for the police this failure to protect operationally sensitive data is just another sign that our "police state" is simply not competent to deal with such sensitive data. Whether that is their own operational plans or our DNA or whatever they want to keep neither the police nor this Government seem capable to handling things with the trust they would want, which we should be unwilling to give them anyway.

****Breaking News**** Channel 4 News have just announced that the officer seen beating and flooring Ian Tomlinson, shortly before he died of a heart attack when he wasn't protesting at G20, has voluntarily come forward.

****Breaking Comment**** Still on Channel 4 News Shami Chakrabarti is right that is doesn't look good. Brain Paddick whilst trying to defend the enquiry and the process is not coming across strong enough against the evidence from the three cameras that captured the final minutes of Ian Tomlinson's existance.

Carnival on Modern Liberty: No Freedom of Speech = No Public Liberty

When the Labour Government first banned protesters in Parliament some people didn't think it would infringe too much on this countries freedom of speech. Under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights all people have "the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression".

No while I don't agree with the views of Geert Wilders nor the views of Fred Phelps of Westboro Church and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper the fact is that both Wilders and now the Phelpses have been denied entry to the UK. They have been denied the right to express themselves. However, as with Geert Wilders last week this may get their message across more clearly and louder than if they have been allowed in.

John Stuart Mill in On Liberty wrote:

"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."

So Jacqui Smith has twice in a week performed just such a peculiar evil of denying the ability to have discourse to unearth the error in that opinion.

Maybe Wilders in right when he called the UK government cowards for refusing his entry. But as with Derek Draper's LabourList diatribe in recent weeks it appears to be the Labour default position. As position to ban any who don't agree with what you say instead of engaging in debate. It is also generally the default position of those for whom the argument is lost to want to avoid debate at any cost. Is that where Labour is?

Benjamin Franklin said:

"Without Freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech."

Sadly now that we cannot take pictures of the police or things that may be considered useful for terrorism our liberties are being eroded. With the Labour government and its apologists trying to control what can be said or blogged we are heading to a dark place devoid of public liberty.

They can watch you, want to read your emails and keep you biometric data. But you are not allowed to come to your own conclusions, think with you own brain or possible go about your business without proving you are you. The liberties we once held dear are going, going....

Does this mean the terrorists have won because are Government and Labour are too scared to let anything go on that might give them opportunity. And the price? Our liberty.

#MPexpenses Ridiculous and Tiresome: Connarty on Expense Claims

Earlier on this week I wrote to Linlithgow and Falkirk MP Michael Connarty asking him to back the move not to exempt MPs expenses from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Bill. With the speed of all the action the usual prompt response I get from my opponent from 2005 was not forthcoming before the dramatic U-Turn of Gordon Brown on Wednesday.

I thought nothing more of it until I read in the Press and Journal that Michael despite claiming to supply receipts to back all his expense claims deems the process to meet it for FOI "ridiculous and tiresome".

Is he saying that transparency to the electorate is tiresome and not worth the effort? Especially when what would be involved appears to be as he claims no more than he does already. What does he mean that is is ridiculous that myself and the other people he represents would be able to get details of their councillors expenses but not their MPs? To me such as proposal to exempt MPs from this legislation is ridiculous.

Also for such a fervent supporter of ID cards as Connarty it is hypocritical. He wants to gather all you personal and biometric data and store it on a data base but is not prepared because of the ridiculous and tiresome nature to let you know how he is paying your taxes.

Or put another way Michael is prepared to learn all about you but not you tell you how he spends your money, if he could get away with it.

ID Cards Objectionable and Unacceptable

The annual disclosure of documents under the 30 year rule always throws up some interesting, some shocking and some embarrassing documents. So the government must be somewhat embarrassed by the feelings of the last Labour administration's take on ID cards.

In 1978 Labour felt that their introduction "would require major changes in practices and powers reaching far beyond immigration control". They stuck to their plans in 1978 not to introduce immigration quotas, as they didn't want the "objectionable2 measure of making everyone carry identification papers. They described the measures of Margaret Thatcher back then as draconian. They felt that such measures in the past were only introduced in times of war.

Step forward 30 years. The war we are apparently fighting is a war on terror in 1978 we were at the height of another terrorist threat. One that struck far more often and far more deadly than the current situation. Yet Labour then did not deem ID cards necessary in 1978 to combat the IRA.

If you consider that most of the current string of domestic terrorists are citizens just as those of 1978, you do have to wonder just what has changed? The only thing is the level of technology that can be used on an ID card. But if Thatcher's measures were described as draconian where does that leave the current situation?

One thing it does show is that Labour are laying aside their principles. In 1978 they were facing serious competition for power, yet were still prepared to stand on matters of principle. When they starting talking about ID cards themselves they were riding high, and the principles of 1978 were forgotten.

Something Old, New, Borrowed..Oops

Yes it could be very blue for married women with regard to the latest lunacy to emerge about Labour's ID card scheme. Apparently failure to tell the authorities that they have changed their name after marriage will land them with a £1000 fine.

However, there is a major problem with this. There are a number of women I know, and some of them are elected representatives even, who continue to use their maiden name for professional reasons, but for other things use their married name. Let's take one famous example:

There is a top whizz international lawyer and speaker who wishes to present her credentials to appear at the High Court. Whoops however, her ID card is not accepted as it is in her married name, as she doesn't want to incur the wrath of a £1000 fine not that she can't afford it.

Now let's assume she wants to attend a major engagement along with her husband, also a well known figure. But let's take it that her ID card is in her working name. Oops her husband walks on by to his appointment with the Queen or the Prime Minister but she is not allowed to follow as the maiden name on her ID card doesn't match the guest list. She may be fined £1000 pounds as well as arrested for identity fraud.

Of course this is all unlikely to happen to Cherie Booth/Blair but what about the rest of womankind.

Nine ID Card Protestors End Up on DNA Database

Yesterday in Edinburgh a Home Office Minister came to outline proposals to businessmen and local government officials of the government's ID card scheme. The campaign group NO2ID had requested to attend this consultation but were refused at every turn.

Yesterday outside the hotel NO2ID held a protest as the people attending this meeting turned up. Some managed to get into the meeting room in order to make their points to the minister, but when they refused to leave they were arrested by the police for breach of the peace. As would be standard procedure under such an event their DNA samples would be taken and will no be held on the Government's DNA database, even if no charges are eventually brought against them.

Green MSP Patrick Harvie said:

"When government ministers refuse to attend public meetings but instead hide behind secretly organised "consultation" meetings, we know New Labour is losing the plot.

"But when peaceful protesters are arrested for simply standing up against a government's abuse of power, then anyone who cares about liberty should be outraged."

Our liberty is being eroded bit by bit by this Government, up to 42 days detention without trial, freedom to protest (wasn't that how the Labour Party was formed), our right to privacy. While this Government has been adding stealth taxes they have also been nibbling away at our freedoms, they claim in the name of freedom. Yet when we go beyond the time scale that China can hold prisoners. When we arrest peaceful demonstrators for breach of the peace when 'consultation' meetings concerning the people go on behind closed doors are we any better than some of those we abhor.

Our Government is protesting that Robert Mugabe is not listening to the voice of the people, yet this Government itself seems adamant to not heed any of the arguments against a national ID database. The fact that three times in the last two weeks more records and sensitive files have been mislaid is one strong one indicator of just how insecure our publicly held information is. Beware what you think, if it doesn't agree with Gordon who knows where you may end up.

Do Labour Need Me to Carry Around Half an ID Card?

A little worrying the tack that Labour's ID Card policy is taking down in Crewe and Nantwich. Especially it would seem the requirement of foreigners to be required to carry them.



Now to the best of my knowledge that requirement was lifted before the end of World War II as soon as Churchill, who hated the whole idea of internment etc could do so. It also hasn't been part of Labour's published plans thus far. Yeah their literature in Crewe and Nantwich is making them sound more like the BNP, with anti-foreigner sentiment by the day.

Now I'm in a dilemma by a quick of grandparentage, well actually my own birth also qualified me, I actually do have two citizenships British and Irish. I do sometime travel on the Irish passport, usually when it is easier considering the history of my British passport's travels. So say on one of those trips I'm returning on my Irish passport as a 'foreigner' on that occasion would I be required to carry an ID card at least until I can reattached to my UK passport?

What about those I work with? I work in an international call centre business are my co-workers many of them from other EU countries going to have to start carrying their ID cards to work? Are there going to b e spot checks on this large concentration of foreign workers? If they are found not be carrying them are they going to shipped of on the short trip to Edinburgh Airport and deported? Well MR Brown what is going on, we want to know.

Tories to Scrap ID Cards: At Last Some Sense

Well David Cameron has announced his revised Built to Last mini-manifesto today. In it his party is pledging to scrap ID cards. This after eventually kow-towing to Labour at every step of the way of the legislative process since first coming out in favour of them 2 years ago.

Now if the Tories had only come to this sensible and logical conclusion to Labour's Big Brother proposals at the start of the process the fight would have been lost by Labour every step of the way. Instead the Tories have now after the process has gone through every level of Parliamentary scrutiny and voting has now come out against it. I'm glad the Liberal Democrats took a principled stand on ID cards the whole way down the line standing up for our civil liberties.

This looks like the latest case of Opportunistic Conservativism, just like Vote Blue Go Green and other proposals that Dave has been spourting forth over the months he has been in charge.

Home Office Not Fit to Deliver ID Cards

Well as Charles Clarke has already told us his department is not fit for purpose it appears from leaks that they are messing up Ton'y Blair's ID card agenda very well.

As many people pointed out before implimentation not a single large scale government computer system has been fully operation by the time scheduled. IN the leaked e-mails David Foord, the ID card project director at the Office of Government Commerce said it was "a project continuing to be driven by an arbitrary end-date rather than reality". The government's timetable and the structure of the massive IT project means "we are setting ourselves up to fail."

And Peter Smith, the acting commercial director of the Identity and Passport Service (IPS) at the Home Office, which is responsible for the ID card scheme, said he had no argument with those conclusions but also in an even more damaging email to Labour revealed his staff were planning for the possibility ministers will scrap the ID card plan altogether. Because of that, he told Mr Foord that the Home Office was making sure contracts for projects linked to the ID card scheme were being designed to survive if the bigger scheme is dropped.

So with Tony Blair being the big advocate for ID cards is the heir apparent Gordon Brown less in favour? Therefore as a result is he liable to scrap the costly and irrelevant project once he takes over at a date, largely expected to be, before the implimentation date of the government's 'voluntary' ID card scheme?

Authoritarian Method Too Far

What do you get if you rush through sensitive legislation? What do you get if don't allow sufficient time for Parliament to scrutinise and debate such legislation?

Well obviously for starters parts of it get overlooked and the repercussions are not fully realised until something that should normally happen without a glitch goes wrong.

Step forward fourteen probationer Methodist Ministers from the USA. Hardly a part of the axis of evil, well at least not as defined by Bush and Blair. Now suddenly under the tightening of observation of anti-terror laws they have been denied work visa to work in some of the UK's Methodist circuits. The law that restricts unordained religious leaders was passed twelve years ago in 1994, it looks like the religious Shadow Home Secretary at the time, ACL Blair MP for Sedgefield, didn't realise the full extent of what Ken Clarke was proposing.

The Superintendent Methodist Minister for Wakefield, Dr Paul Glass sums up the situation very succinctly and astutely:

"This rule is meant to be for unqualified Islamic students. You could not imagine somebody less like a terrorist than a young American Methodist minister.

"It seems to be ludicrous and a direct attack on religious freedom. The Government is in danger of looking ridiculous.

"Faced with a Government that is acting in increasingly authoritarian ways, I would hope that we could bring as much pressure to bear as possible to change this restrictive action."

Personally I think the time that the Government is in danger of looking ridiculous has long passed. However, I do think that legislation of the most sensitive nature, especially in relation to law and order or terrorism is too often rushed through Parliament as a knee jerk reaction to recent events. The amount of scrutiny that people would expect on such sensitive issues is not carried out. There is an over abundance of lawyers in both Houses of Parliament surely these minds, some of whom spent their professional career looking for loopholes in the law. Should these people not be given time on these issues to scrutinise the minutiae of these things to get the letter right not just the spirit.

Connarty vs Liberalism

Well the scorecards are in for this week.

ID Card Bill 5 Divisions Michael Connarty Illiberal on all 5 counts.

Terrorism Bill 3 Divisions Michael Connarty Illiberal on all 3 counts.

So next time he claims to be liberal the people of Linlithgow and East Falkirk will know differently.

It Doesn't Happen Often

It's not often that I praise the DUP however I was impressed my one-time economics teacher, now MP for East Antrim, Sammy Wilson contribution to the ID card debate last night. However, he was attachking one of the few strands of the entire bill that the government have held firm on the whoe way through that is that the cost is worth it.

Stewart Hussie of the SNP followed not long afterwards laying out the ridiculous claims of the saving that the government, sorry the private sector, will make as a result of this government funded scheme paid for by, well I guess that is us the ordinary citizens.

Both these comments were followed by Michael Linton who said:

no one has seriously challenged its figures. In fact, they have hardly been mentioned.

I recommend that Mr Linton read Hansard as he apparently is suffering from the newly discovered Labour Party malaise of inconvenient deafness, inconvenient that is to the public.

However, this is one issue that must not lie down. So if you haven't already please visit the No2ID website.

Michael Plays Follow the Leader (In Waiting)

Well Michael Connarty appears to not be listening to himself, or reading his own attributed quotes in the Sunday Herald, when he said that Tony Bliar was illiberal and this was why the people of Dunfermline and West Fife had voted against Labour. He followed Gordon Brown into the aye lobbies on all five divsions on the ID Card Bill last night.

Somehow this should not surprise me as Michael was wanting Gordon to take over as leader as soon as possible after last year's General Election. Something he was not backward about being forward about.

We'll see how things go on Wednesday with the Glorification of Terrorism Debate.