Well done to the Independent
This story was on the front page of Thursday’s Independent:
Warning: Do not take this picture
[and a large photo of St Paul’s]
Police have been accused of misusing powers granted under anti-terror legislation after a series of incidents, ranging from the innocuous to the bizarre, in which photographers were questioned by officers for taking innocent pictures of tourist destinations, landmarks and even a fish and chip shop. …
I didn’t know this:
Every train station in the UK is covered by a Section 44 order.
I did know this:
But, due to the fear that the information could be used by terrorists to plan attacks, most of the the exact locations covered by Section 44 authorisations are kept secret, meaning members of the public have no idea if they are in one or not.
Which means any deterrent or reassurance must be near zero.
Funny old world.
And on Saturday another front page
Police forces across the country have been warned to stop using anti-terror laws to question and search innocent photographers after The Independent forced senior officers to admit that the controversial legislation is being widely misused.
The strongly worded warning was circulated by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) last night. In an email sent to the chief constables of England and Wales’s 43 police forces, officers were advised that Section 44 powers should not be used unnecessarily against photographers. The message says: “Officers and community support officers are reminded that we should not be stopping and searching people for taking photos. Unnecessarily restricting photography, whether from the casual tourist or professional, is unacceptable.” …
A victory for liberty
Two men suspected of terrorist-related activities have won a landmark High Court battle against government use of secret evidence to deny them bail.
Two judges ruled that a person cannot be denied bail solely on the basis of secret evidence.
Human rights solicitors have described the judgement as a “historic” victory.
Special Immigration Appeals Commission lawyers said they would go to the Court of Appeal as the men – branded security risks – could now potentially be freed.
The ruling represents victory for a Pakistani student facing removal from the UK, who had been refused bail on the basis of secret evidence, and an Algerian national – known as U – whose bail was revoked.
The 23-year-old Pakistani student, referred to as Xc, was one of 10 arrested in April 2009 in north west England.
He was later released by police, but immediately re-arrested and held pending deportation to Pakistan as a “threat to national security”.
Er
A Scotland Yard commander was accused of misleading parliament tonight after an inquiry found that undercover police were secretly deployed at the G20 protests to spy on activists, contrary to the police chief’s denials.
Commander Bob Broadhurst, who had overall command of the G20 policing operation, told the home affairs select committee in May that “no plain clothes officers [were] deployed at all” during the demonstrations in the City of London.
It has emerged that 25 undercover City of London police were stationed around the Bank of England to gather “intelligence” on protesters on 1 and 2 April. Broadhurst stands by the evidence he gave to MPs, claiming the deployment of undercover officers was unknown to him.
…
Details about the use of undercover officers were revealed in four months of correspondence between senior police officers and MPs, who were surprised by the evidence given by Broadhurst when he appeared with the Met commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson. Both men were questioned by the Liberal Democrat MP Tom Brake on the use of plain clothes officers. Brake, the MP for Carshalton and Wallington, had seena video broadcast by the Guardian that apparently showed two plain clothes officers wielding batons and walking among a line of riot police.
…
Keith Vaz, chairman of the select committee, has written to Broadhurst suggesting the disclosure about plain clothes officers “contradicts” his evidence to MPs. Broadhurst claimed the officers filmed marching among Met and City of London riot police were “evidence gatherers” seeking to identify a certain protester.
Brake said Broadhurst had “inadvertently misled” parliament, thus revealing a “startling lack of co-ordination” in the top ranks. “If plain clothes officers were only deployed to gather intelligence why is one clearly seen brandishing a baton?”
Perhaps they intended to gather evidence by baton?
Beyond parody
But no laughing matter.
The Government has pledged that all 16 to 18 year olds will complete 50 hours of community work as part of its move to raise the school leaving age.
In the speech announcing the plan, which will be a Labour manifesto pledge, Gordon Brown specifically mentioned that teenagers would make a difference by “helping in an old people’s home or tutoring younger pupils”.
But under the Government’s strict new vetting regime, anyone over the age of 16 working with children or vulnerable adults will have to start registering with the new Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) from November next year. …
So the teenagers will have to be checked.
Also surely the elderly or vulnerable will have to be checked too, because they will be in contact with these teenagers.
The vetting scheme was initially designed to protect children against abuse. More than 11 million people are expected to be vetted by 2015. Checks cost £64 but are free to volunteers.
The scheme is only supposed to apply to those who work with children or vulnerable adults on a frequent or intensive basis but many organisations take a “better safe then sorry approach”.
Critics have condemned the application of vetting to an ever-growing number of law-abiding helpers.
Parents who ferry children to football matches, adults who sit in with their youngsters at Sunday school and parents who occasionally help out at Scouts have all fallen victim to the zealous imposition of the checks.
Mounting opposition has led Ed Balls, the Children’s Secretary, to announce a review of the rules. Sir Roger Singleton, the chair of the ISA, will attempt to clarify who will be covered by the scheme. He will report next month.
A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families, said: “We have asked Sir Roger to advise on this issue as part of his check on who should have to register with the vetting and barring scheme.”
But why on earth wasn’t it made clear already? Critics of the scheme since its inception, even if they broadly supported it in principle, predicted there would be such consequences. I wrote over a year ago that,
Parents are not being allowed into Christmas discos. A large proportion of adults are being put off volunteer work – with consequences for children (e.g. 50,000 girls excluded from joining Girl Guides because of a shortage of adult leaders). Adults are put off from reassuring children.
It’s harming civil society. Did our beloved leaders include these consequences in their cost-benefit analysis of the scheme?
Oh, now I read that (hat-tip Andrew Watson),
Parents who want to accompany their children to Christmas carol services and other festive activities are being officially vetted for criminal records in case they are paedophiles. …
Among those affected are parents at a village primary school who have been told they must be vetted before they can accompany pupils on a 10-minute walk to a morning carol service at the local church.
Other primaries have instituted vetting for parents attending Christmas discos on school premises. Some schools require checks on parents who volunteer to walk with children from the school to post letters to Father Christmas.
Frank Furedi, professor of sociology at Kent University and the author of a report on paranoia over child protection, said: “Once you institutionalise mistrust, you incite people to take these things further and further, finding new areas to implement criminal record checks.
“It becomes a badge of responsibility and a symbolic ritual. It doesn’t matter if it doesn’t make sense.”
Quite.
Incidentally, from the first article I linked to above,
Some charities have criticised the plan and have said that its mandatory nature goes against the spirit of volunteering.
Er yes, because volunteering for something means you freely choose to do it. By definition, you can’t be compelled to volunteer. Jebus, it’s like ‘presumed consent’ for organ donation.
DNA Database
from the 19th november.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (Liberal Democrat)
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to legislate to abide by the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 4 December 2008 in S and Marper v United Kingdom so as to end the practice of holding DNA samples of individuals who are arrested but later acquitted or have the charges against them dropped; and, if so, whether they will ensure that the practice is ended and legislation enacted during the present Parliament.
Lord West of Spithead (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Security and Counter-terrorism), Home Office; Labour)
We will bring forward proposals to change domestic law in response to the judgment as soon as parliamentary time allows.
… given that the governing party sets the Parliamentary timetable.
And, given that it is a matter of policy, not law, as to the samples that are taken and for how long, this is a bit of a red herring – in other words, the police aren’t obliged by law to take samples, the law simply gives them the power to do so, and policy changes do not require changes in domestic law.
UK Liberty 
leave a comment