Quick one off the (Terror) Wrist

So, you crack down on our liberty and give the police new powers to terrorise (sorry, protect) the population, and what do you have to show for it? These figures from ConservativeHome this morning.

"Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows the police to stop and search people. In 2008:

• Number of people stopped nationwide by British Transport Police using s 44: 160,000
• Number of people stopped in London by the Metropolitan Police using s. 44: 200,000
• Number of people amongst the 360,000 stopped under s. 44 and found to have any terrorist material or links: 0"

Draw your own conclusions.

Picture this...

If there was any doubt remaining that our civil liberties are under threat from Jacqui/Jacqboot Smith, the BJP has this report:

"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."

Now, I can sort of understand taking pictures of military installations, but of a policeman, or a civil servant? It's patently ridiculous, and is potentially far reaching law that will be wide open to abuse. Give an inch, and they'll take a mile. I thnk you'll agree that "...a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism..." is pretty woolly language and leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

I bet HMtQ (Her Majesty the Queen, in case you've not seen that one before) will be very pleased that all those louts taking photographs of the guards at Buckingham can now all be arrested and kept at her pleasure for the next ten years. Sound crazy? Not really, she's a pretty good terrorist target. Could be a potential suicide bomber planning his attack and taking photos to figure out a way past the guards. Who knows?

This is the kind of authoritarian law you expect in a banana republic or dictatorship, not in the 'free' world, in the oldest democracy in the world. We should be free to take pictures - and journalists especially - of the police, in action or not, if for no other reason than we must be able to hold them to account.

What is lacking here is any sign of principles. It's like the fuckwits who say: "Oh, I don't mind all the extra checks at the airport, because it's for my own safety." No it fucking isn't; it primes you for further abuses of your liberty. What makes an aircraft so special? You could carry a liquid bomb onto a commuter train to far greater effect, and I don't see security checks at the train station in the morning. What happened to trust? Innocent until proven guilty? This is guilty until proven innocent, and that is incongruous with the spirit of liberty, law and democracy.

We need our leaders to stand up for the principles of liberty and say: "Yes, there is a risk that a photo could be used in a terrorist act, but we cannot and must not erode the freedoms of the people, lest we become what that against which we fight." Okay, so I'm being a bit verbose there, but I think you get the idea. The price of freedom is that sometimes people will abuse that freedom. The law is there to ensure that when people do, they are punished. This law is wrong because it assumes guilt until proven otherwise.

Calling them ZanuLab has never been more appropriate.

Hat tip to DK and Bearwatch.

A matter of distance...

It looks like Harriet Harman can see the writing on the wall. She clumsily avoided giving any vote of support for the Speaker, Michael Martin, whose failure to stand up to police (who entered without a warrant) was compounded by a weak statement at the opening of parliament yesterday. This should hardly surprise us, after all, he lets Brown and NuLab get away with murder in the commons.

Interestingly, the focus seems to be moving away from Jacqui and Gordon. Their apparent ignorance of the plans of the Counter-Terrorist police to arrest Damian Green suggests that they are either incompetent, or liars.

Surely not?

Back to the Speaker for a moment, the Times makes a good point about the actual rights of MPs, but you might have thought that it was his duty to ask Police whether they posessed a warrant, and at least satisfy himself that their response was in proportion to the alleged offence.

The real issue at stake here is why the police suddenly felt this particular mole and MP were worth going after, and why the response was so heavy-handed. After all, Gordon Brown made boasts about his leaks for years, perhaps the Met might like to chase down some of these politicians as well?