Much of what you read here is nonsense, the snapshots of anger, the moments of levity; it’s nearly all superficial crap. This is because any considered opinions I may have are kept safely locked away my head, where they can’t cause any harm.
Sometimes though, I have to get serious. This is one of those times.
People, I fear, are tired of hearing the same trite comparisons trotted out to do their turn and make the crowds gasp; the 1984 reference itself is looking especially worn, courtesy of hyperventilating anti-establishment types. However, and with the best will in the world, there are some genuinely frightening parallels to be drawn, life imitating art, as it were.
I’m not going to bore you by trying spoon-feed you my opinion on the state of our nation, or even try to influence you one way or the other when it comes to matters of governmental interference. I’m just going to ask you to read the following articles and then tell me what you think.
Uproar at plan to hold inquests in secret
Inquests that are deemed a risk to national security by the Government would be held in secret in future under proposed powers to come before the House of Lords this autumn.
The provisions, under a clause in the Counter-Terrorism Bill, allow the Home Secretary to stop a jury being summoned, replace the coroner with a government appointee and bar the public from inquests if it is deemed to be in the public interest.
It could be applied to inquests similar to those into the deaths of the weapons inspector David Kelly, “friendly-fire” military casualties or Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Fayed. In future, inquests similar to that into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, which is due to start next month with 44 police officers giving evidence anonymously, could also be subject to the secrecy clause.
Lawyers, opposition MPs and pressure groups have told The Times that the move represents a fundamental breach of the right to a public inquiry into a death – a centuries-old mainstay of British justice.
They said that a full-scale campaign is being prepared to block the provision, which granted the Home Secretary unprecedented powers to intervene in the workings of the judiciary.
The measure, Section 63 of the Bill, passed through the House of Commons in July without fanfare as debate raged over the headline power for the 42-day detention of terror suspects.
It would enable specially vetted coroners to sit in private without a jury when there is evidence involving national intelligence to be heard, or any matter that the Home Secretary deems not in the public interest.
The family of Azelle Rodney, who was shot seven times by the police in a surveillance operation in April 2005, have been told that their case will be subject to the new measures. The family’s solicitor described the move as a fiasco, bearing no resemblance to a fair system of justice.
The Coroners’ Society condemned the measure as an absolute disgrace, saying that the system could be abused to draw a veil over politically inconvenient cases. The pressure group Inquest added that the proposals would give unprecedented powers to the Secretary of State to intervene in inquests where issues of state intelligence are involved.
John Cooper, a barrister who has acted for families in several inquests, said that there was a great risk that the Home Secretary would accede to holding inquests in private “where matters to be raised are merely embarrassing for the Government”.
He said: “The power could be used to undermine a basic fundamental principle of English law – that of open justice.”
Dominic Grieve, the Shadow Home Secretary, said that the Conservative Party would redouble its efforts to amend the Bill in the Lords. “The Government has so far failed to make the case for handing it the power to appoint the coroner, disband the jury and hold inquests in secret,” he said.
David Howarth, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on home affairs, said: “These proposals are completely wrong. They allow the Secretary of State to remove a case from a jury on the vague ground that it is in the public interest – the whole thing is an appalling violation of the separation of powers.”
A leading Labour MP has also led opposition to the move to scrap the secret inquests measure. Andrew Dismore, the chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, said that the provisions went way beyond mere terrorist cases. He said that they contravened the European Convention on Human Rights.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice said the Government recognised that in a “very small number of cases a change to the law may be required to enable inquests to go ahead where highly sensitive material is relevant.
“These proposed changes will ensure inquests are as thorough as possible by ensuring that the coroner can always examine all material central to the inquests even if the material cannot be disclosed publicly. They will ensure families can have absolute confidence in the conclusion the coroner reaches because the coroner will have had access to all the evidence.”
Matters of life and death
- The office of coroner dates from 1194, evolving over eight centuries from medieval tax gatherer to independent judicial officer
- The system was created in its present form in 1887
- There are more than 120 coroners in England and Wales
- They investigate more than 200,000 deaths a year and hold inquests into some 25,000
- They are judicial officers who must have legal or medical qualifications – some have both
- The proportion of all registered deaths reported to coroners was 45.7 per cent in 2006
- In 2006 the most common verdicts returned were deaths by accident or misadventure (34 per cent), natural causes (25 per cent) and suicide (12 per cent)
- In 2006, male deaths accounted for about 68 per cent of verdicts; but included 93 per cent of verdicts of death from industrial disease, 77 per cent of suicide, and 84 per cent of death from dependence on, or non-dependent abuse of, drugs. For females, the most common was death by accident or misadventure (40 per cent of all verdicts for females) and death from natural causes (28 per cent)
- In Scotland the Procurator Fiscal investigates sudden and unexplained deaths
Source: Times Online
Now, take a break, have a biscuit and get ready, it’s time for article number two.
Councils get power to ‘spy’ on your e-mail and net use
Councils and health authorities are to be given the right to access e-mail and internet records under surveillance powers to be introduced next year, the Home Office said yesterday.
Although first proposed to tackle terrorism and serious crime, powers have been extended to cover other criminal activity, public health, threats to public safety and even prevention of self-harm.
The Home Office said that the move would involve internet service providers storing one billion incidents of data each day and storing them for a minimum of 12 months. Under the plans the taxpayer would pay £46 million to internet service providers for holding information, even though some already keep similar records for marketing purposes.
Opposition MPs criticised the plans as a “snoopers’ charter”. Dominic Grieve, the Shadow Home Secretary, said: “Yet again the Government has proved itself unable to resist the temptation to take a power quite properly designed to combat terrorism to snoop on the lives of ordinary people in everyday circumstances.” He added: “It is typical of this Government that it also intends to make the taxpayer pay extra for the privilege.”
Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: “Ministers have proven time and time again that they are not to be trusted with sensitive data, but they seem intent on pressing ahead with this snoopers’ charter.
“We will be told it is for use in combating terrorism and organised crime but if the powers are anything to go by, it will soon be used to spy on ordinary people’s kids, pets and bins.”
Details emerged in the government consultation paper published yesterday on plans for implementing an EU directive developed after the 7/7 London bombings. Records of every e-mail, internet session and telephone call made over the internet will be stored for a minimum of 12 months with police, local councils and other organisations able to access the details.
The information will include the date and times of the log-in and log-off from the internet – the “who, when, and where” of communication – but not the contents of calls, messages or lists of websites which had been accessed.
The Home Office consultation paper said: “The directive rightly refers to atrocities in London in making the case for adopting the measures for the retention of communication data across Europe.
“For many years this valuable data has allowed investigators to identify suspects, examine their contacts, establish relationships between conspirators and place them in a specific location.”
When the EU agreement on the deal was first reached, Charles Clarke, then Home Secretary, said it “placed a vital tool against terrorism and serious crime in the hands of law enforcement agencies across Europe”.
But yesterday the Home Office admitted that data would be held for much wider purposes than tackling terrorism and serious crime – and hundreds more organisations would be able to access it.
The emergency services, the Serious Organised Crime Agency, every local council, health authorities, the Post Office, Home Office, Ministry of Defence, Health and Safety Executive, Food Standards Agency and Post Office will have access to the information. Since last October telecoms companies have been required to keep records of phone calls and texts. Law enforcement agencies and other public bodies would appoint an “authorising officer” from within their own workforce who approves requests for data.
The request would be made in an official letter, signed by the “authorising officer”, to a named contact within a telecoms firm or internet service provider who would be required to provide the information. This year Sir Christopher Rose, the Chief Surveillance Commissioner, gave warning of the inexperience of some authorising officers in local councils and government departments.
Some internet service providers voluntarily keep data on internet and e-mail use for marketing and billing purposes.At present organisations seeking the records must approach individual internet service providers but the Home Office wants all data stored on one massive government database.
Source: Times Online
Finished? Good.
Now, I’ve only one caveat with regards to comments on this article, please, no mention of the whole “those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear” argument. It may seem uncharitable of me, but the argument presupposes that those with access to information will not abuse it, which simply isn’t the case. Call me a cynic if you must, but we are talking about central government here.
Latest Comments
RSS