Are you them or us?

Are we getting value for money from our government? Are the ministers of state performing at a level commensurate with the salary, expenses and pensions we pay them? As their employers we are entitled to ask the questions. As our employees they should be able to make a response that at the very least leads us to believe their performance is adequate. As individuals we have little opportunity to question ministers, instead we delegate that responsibility to our representatives, the MP’s who sit in the House of Commons. If government is not performing to a reasonable standard we are also entitled to question these guardians of the interests of this country’s owners - us.

There will always be arguments as to the correct policy to be followed. When judging government we should lay aside our tribal leanings and concentrate on the central issues. How are our political masters performing? What can be said about their -
Analysis of situations
Definition of situations
Consideration of possible responses and consequences
Formulation of legislation

Their words
Gordon Brown insisted yesterday that he would not put civil liberties at risk despite signalling his determination to match Tony Blair's hardline stance on countering terrorism with a series of controversial new measures.

Speaking at a Labour hustings in Newcastle, he said he was ready to be "tough in the security measures that are necessary to prevent terrorist incidents in this country". But he said he would protect civil liberties. "There has got to be independent judicial oversight. There has got to be proper parliamentary accountability."
The Guardian 4 June 2007

Their deeds
Because Europe controls most of the legislative machinery that governs us our Government has less to do in Westminster. It retains control over issues of defence, security and policing and when it is politically expedient to show ‘decisive leadership and strength of purpose’ it rolls out ragbag statutes that affect our rights and freedoms. But, how well do they do it?

Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000
This allows police, within an area designated by a senior police officer, to stop and search individuals without the need to show grounds for suspicion or indeed any other cause. In 2008 360,000 people were so treated by just two police forces, the Metropolitan Police and British Transport Police. 1000 searches a day and not one item of terrorist literature or material was seized. Not one person was arrested or cautioned let alone charged. This raises many questions that could be asked by any reasonable, law abiding, responsible and politically inactive citizen with an ounce of logic.

Were these searches random? If so is it not reasonable to suppose that terrorists on active duty will avoid areas that have been ‘designated’ as stop and search areas. That will have the effect of keeping London safe while dispersing terrorism throughout the rest of the country and incidentally increasing the frustration of London’s citizens as they go about their lawful business. Currently between 8000 and 10000 searches are conducted monthly.

Or, were these searches targeted? If so on what basis, is there a stereotypical profile of terrorist behaviour? With absolutely zero per cent success it would appear that, if this is the case, the model being followed is neither accurate or efficient.

Were these ‘trojan’ searches? That is searches conducted under terrorism legislation but intended to elicit information of a non-terrorist nature. One of our basic freedoms is that there can be no police action against us without grounds for suspicion. It is there to prevent the harassment of individuals unpopular with the authorities.

To give an indication of the application of section 44 consider the experience of Matt Wardman, white, 40’s, middle class. Searched along with his female companion after studying a map outside St Pancras station. Why? What Neanderthal logic determines that reading a map on public display in a public place (where people unfamiliar with London are likely to be) is tantamount to planting barrels of gunpowder under the Houses of Parliament. Having never met or spoken to Mr Wardman I cannot say whether his eyes are close together or if he has some other undeniable criminal features linked with the standard profile of a terrorist. I just feel that the police might spend their time and our money a little more profitably trying to reduce the levels of pick-pocketing around our London transportation system.

Section 44 is part of a series of bad legislation. It is bad not because of its stated intent but in the totally feckless way it was designed, drawn up and implemented. Starting with the basics, there is no definition of terrorism ergo no definition of terrorist. Possibly this is because if our Government employed a definition along the lines of “the act of attempting to overthrow a government by employing acts of violence on a country’s citizens” it might have difficulty justifying Iraq. Leaving the police to choose how to implement the act has resulted only in innocent people being targeted, in the circumvention of our civil rights . There is even a back up in section 43 should 44 become too controversial.

The legislation allows for designation of an area as a danger zone on a temporary basis of four weeks. This was one of the safeguards parliament sought for us when the act was being debated. Our MP’s have obviously lost interest now because the ‘temporary’ measure has been renewed in London every four weeks for at least five years with no demur from Westminster.

Of course if you want to protest the reduction of your freedoms make sure you are more than a kilometre away from the houses of parliament otherwise you will fall foul of the Serious and Organised Crime Act. The new offence of demonstrating in an unauthorised place, even peacefully and quietly, will render you liable to a court appearance and a criminal record. If during your arrest you are backhanded by a police officer or pushed in the back so you fall to the ground and you attempt to gather information about that officer’s name and number or try to photograph them for identification purposes you will be commiting another offence under the counter terrorism legislation.

You could try writing letters, ah no, can’t do that - Protection from Harassment Act. If you write more than one letter (carry on a course of conduct) which annoys or upsets your chosen politician (cause distress) then you could be sent down for six months. As a by-the-way, if Government agencies or officials harass someone, the minister has powers under the act to issue a certificate that absolves them of any wrong doing.

How does this make our Government any different to dictatorships around the world? Well our Goverment/Police/Security Services promise they won’t abuse the powers they have or the trust people have in them. Yeah. Right.

If by virtue of our silence we allow these abuses to continue we deserve everything we get. DNA databases, ID cards, car transponders recording journeys, records of all emails sent, websites visited, mobile phone calls recorded, cctv. If you are of the opinion that, if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about, consider this. This is the Government that made protest illegal anywhere by anyone unless officially approved. What are you going to do if they declare expression of dissent or communicating with someone who holds ‘subversive’ views illegal. I, for one, do not have faith that they won’t. Can you show me proof that they will?

How do you make a terrorist of a normal, peaceful man or woman?
Remove their rights to peacefully challenge, question or protest the official policies.

Legislation introduced by this Government which, by the way it is implemented, reduces civil rights in the pursuit of a ‘greater good’.

Serious and Organised Crime Act 1997
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
Terrorism Act 2000
Serious and Organised Crime Act 2005
Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005
Terrorism Act 2006
Counter-terrorism Act 2008
NB Over 250 acts exist that grant statutory right of entry to your home to a wide variety of officials from government and local authority agencies.

In the same period the gap between rich and poor has grown exponentially. The UK Government turned a blind eye to kidnap and torture by the USA. The UK Government attempted to double the income tax of the poorest citizens of the land. Government ministers receiving remuneration of £141,866 a year fiddled their expenses, MPs did the same. It presided over the deregulation of pension funds resulting in massive losses. It took this country into an illegal war resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. It failed to exercise due care over the banks and financial services industry. And on, and on, and on.

Government of the people, by people who regard themselves as superior, for the purpose of looking after themselves and their friends.