Protection of Freedoms Bill

#1
Sky News and The Independent
"Under the Protection of Freedoms Bill, Police will have to delete the records of innocent people from the national DNA database and there will be tighter regulation of CCTV with communities given more say on how cameras are used in their area.There will, apparently, be measures to curb CCTV, plus new safeguards of the right to protests and restrictions on the libel laws. The notorious RIPA law that allows local councils to spy on residents suspected of lying about where they live will be struck out".

Government seeks to end a"13-year assault on hard-won British freedoms", Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has said.

"Councils will be prevented from snooping in residents' lives, including by checking the contents of their rubbish and there will be a crackdown on rogue wheelclampers who will be banned from operating on private land".

Does this reinstate freedom , restore balance between the State and the Public, and cull the private sector mafia? Or will this Bill be a measure some will regret?
 
#2
I'm pretty sure the same news outlets will be the first to print, "Why didn't the authorities intervene?"-type stories next time some kiddie gets killed by their parents. We may get the government we deserve but we also get the media we do too.
 
#3
The Register's take on this is interesting; The repeal bill: what's left in, what's left out • The Register

A helpful link allows the public to view all 13,954 proposals put forward by the public in respect of either "restoring liberty" or "repealing laws". Many of these proposals are duplicated. Some, such as a proposal to ban bathplugs, are ludicrous: some, as the request for a £100 birthday present law, hopeful; and others, including the ban on shops selling red tape in future, quite ingenious
 
#4
Of course it makes every sense for "Chav sink estate" not to have cameras, as 60% of the population don't want their nasty brats seen rioting outsiude the local post office mugging the pensioners and attacking the property and persons of the 40% of remaining decent citizens.

Democracy in action!


Of course the private gated communities in Guildford will think it an excellent idea. (Oh, wait, they have their own anyway!)
 
#5
Of course it makes every sense for "Chav sink estate" not to have cameras, as 60% of the population don't want their nasty brats seen rioting outsiude the local post office mugging the pensioners and attacking the property and persons of the 40% of remaining decent citizens.

Democracy in action!
So if the Old Bill pick you for something you had no connection with you are OK with them keeping your DNA?

I'm not and they can **** off - and if you agree with keeping the DNA so can you :evil:
 
#6
So if the Old Bill pick you for something you had no connection with you are OK with them keeping your DNA?

I'm not and they can **** off - and if you agree with keeping the DNA so can you :evil:
Not quite what I said in my post :)

I happen to agree with you on the DNA.
 
#7
All too often the headline title of Bills during their passage through Parliament bear little relation to what they actually contain when they emerge from the Crown Printers when the intention underlying their introduction at first reading collides with the reality of committees and sub-committees and last-minute amendments.

What may well start its life as a Bill to protect the freedom of the public may very well end up with an Act which protects the freedom of the official to do with what he likes with the freedom of the public.

Anyone who believe in anything they are promised by British Politicians is dangerously deluded. Those people live in a world that advances their own intersts and certainly not yours!
 
#8
To my mind this all highlights the importance of the principle of the European Human Rights Act.

The practical detail may sometimes be a bit problematic, but enshrining our rights in an Act which is beyond the reach of our self-serving and over-mighty politicians is, in my opinion, a bloody good idea.
 
#9
I agree. We have already seen in this last week the complete and utter arrogance of those from both parties who preach adherence to the rule of law when it suits them, and their utter contempt for it when it involves adhererence to the judgement of a court whose jurisprudence they have agreed to be bound by international treaty to observe because it comes down in favour of a class of individual they do not particularly like.

If a state agrees by international treaty to be bound by a higher form of law, it cannot then renege on that when the judgement of that court proves to be inconvenient or unpopular.

If we translate that attitude to the Bill under consideration, I can predict fairly confidently that whatever 'rights' and 'freedoms' are purported to be contained within it, each clause will be riddled with exceptions, exemptions, provisos, qualifications and excuses rendering the 'right' or 'freedom' in question little more than, at best, a weak permission, or at worst, something that lies in the discretionary power of the appropriate minister who may enlarge or restrict it by statutory instrument with the changing weather of political expediency. We already have evidence of that in their proposals to restrict the application of employment law in this country.

Rights and freedoms that cannot withstand the chance or caprice of those whose interests are inconvenienced by that which they purport to grant are little worse than useless.
 
#10
So if the Old Bill pick you for something you had no connection with you are OK with them keeping your DNA?

I'm not and they can **** off - and if you agree with keeping the DNA so can you :evil:
Depends how you look at it, if someone raped your daughter/wife/mother but wasnt a convicted criminal would you like the police to look at their database and see if its anyone who was previously innocent? Or if the police had the DNA of those who were innocent they wouldnt waste time questioning them?
Everyone wants these freedoms right up until the moment a crime affects them.

Anyone who believe in anything they are promised by British Politicians is dangerously deluded. Those people live in a world that advances their own interests and certainly not yours!
Yeah, where as your saintly EU politicians are all for the little people.
 
#11
Given that EU Politicans, particularly those in the European Parliament are drawn mostly from those who have served in the UK Parliament or those who would not win enough support to make it there, I have no reason to trust them as a political class any more than I trust our own. What separates the operation of the two is that the institutions are completely different. In the United Kingdom, Parliament is dominated by an elected Monarch in the form of a Prime Minister. In the EU, the institutions have a far more effective separation of powers. In other words, although an idiot like Forage has a voice, he does not have the voice. In the United Kingdom, it is the Prime Minister who has the voice, although often it is mouthed by others.

As for your reposte about being for the little people. Nearly all of your employment legislation and practically all of your consumer protection legislation came from Europe. It did not come from our own Parliament who are mainly concerned with either ensuring you are worked to death, taxed to death, fleeced or making sure that those rights that you do have are effectively neutralised by limiting as far as possible your ability to access the courts with proper legal representation in order to vindicate them!
 
#12
Depends how you look at it, if someone raped your daughter/wife/mother but wasnt a convicted criminal would you like the police to look at their database and see if its anyone who was previously innocent? Or if the police had the DNA of those who were innocent they wouldnt waste time questioning them?
Hear Hear, if you have nothing to hide what is so objectionable about the Police having evidence which would exclude you from their enquiries? In My Opinion EVERYONE in the UK should have their DNA taken and EVERYONE should have a national Identity card by law.

Nothing to hide? then you have nothing to fear...BUT, and it is indeed a very very big BUT, the control of that information must be scrupilously adhered to.... and that is where the scheme would probably fail.
 
#13
Of course it makes every sense for "Chav sink estate" not to have cameras, as 60% of the population don't want their nasty brats seen rioting outsiude the local post office mugging the pensioners and attacking the property and persons of the 40% of remaining decent citizens.

Democracy in action!
Just wait until the elected police commissioners start up!

Beholden to the miserable old letter writers who now have access to email, and chavs who have nothing better to do. Like all elected officials with power they'll be doing and saying anything to stay in office.
 
#14
Hear Hear, if you have nothing to hide what is so objectionable about the Police having evidence which would exclude you from their enquiries? In My Opinion EVERYONE in the UK should have their DNA taken and EVERYONE should have a national Identity card by law.

Nothing to hide? then you have nothing to fear...BUT, and it is indeed a very very big BUT, the control of that information must be scrupilously adhered to.... and that is where the scheme would probably fail.
If you want to give your DNA to the state, go ahead. But I'll decide what happens with my DNA, thank you, not you and not the state.

And stop watching CSI. All DNA evidence proves is the presence of some DNA, not whodunnit. It is circumstantial evidence and, as such, will not exclude anyone from any enquiry. You'll find that your DNA will have been spread over numerous crime scenes.
 
#15
Seems a good thing to me. I completely agree with the other posters about having a British Bill of Rights fully enshrined in law.


Hear Hear, if you have nothing to hide what is so objectionable about the Police having evidence which would exclude you from their enquiries? In My Opinion EVERYONE in the UK should have their DNA taken and EVERYONE should have a national Identity card by law.

Nothing to hide? then you have nothing to fear...BUT, and it is indeed a very very big BUT, the control of that information must be scrupilously adhered to.... and that is where the scheme would probably fail.
Thats a very dangerous road to go down. Whats next, CCTV in everyones homes? Everyone fitted with tracking devices? Nothing to hide nothing to fear, right?

You might have full confidence in our authorities and their desire to do good but I bloody well don't. The State has no buisness with my DNA.
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#16
I agree. We have already seen in this last week the complete and utter arrogance of those from both parties who preach adherence to the rule of law when it suits them, and their utter contempt for it when it involves adhererence to the judgement of a court whose jurisprudence they have agreed to be bound by international treaty to observe because it comes down in favour of a class of individual they do not particularly like.

If a state agrees by international treaty to be bound by a higher form of law, it cannot then renege on that when the judgement of that court proves to be inconvenient or unpopular.

If we translate that attitude to the Bill under consideration, I can predict fairly confidently that whatever 'rights' and 'freedoms' are purported to be contained within it, each clause will be riddled with exceptions, exemptions, provisos, qualifications and excuses rendering the 'right' or 'freedom' in question little more than, at best, a weak permission, or at worst, something that lies in the discretionary power of the appropriate minister who may enlarge or restrict it by statutory instrument with the changing weather of political expediency. We already have evidence of that in their proposals to restrict the application of employment law in this country.

Rights and freedoms that cannot withstand the chance or caprice of those whose interests are inconvenienced by that which they purport to grant are little worse than useless.
You talk about the rule of law bit where is the law that is being broken? What democratically elected body enacted that law?

In a democracy a law is wrong I can elect a government to change it. Who can I elect to change this Euro law?



Sent from my iPhone using ARRSE so please excuse fat fingers and slips of the keyboard.
 
#17
Hear Hear, if you have nothing to hide what is so objectionable about the Police having evidence which would exclude you from their enquiries? In My Opinion EVERYONE in the UK should have their DNA taken and EVERYONE should have a national Identity card by law.

Nothing to hide? then you have nothing to fear...BUT, and it is indeed a very very big BUT, the control of that information must be scrupilously adhered to.... and that is where the scheme would probably fail.
You would have made a great Nazi coming out with that load of crap.

Tell me, what the hell as it got to do with the state what i do as long as it is legal? I'll tell you, **** all.

We are the most surveilled country in the world and it is getting worse.

As for the control and adherence of that information, do you seriously trust the state to look after all that information and not lose it? I bloody don't.

I am not one of those freeman of the land idiots, i am just an ordinary working fella who is sick to ****ing death of the state prying into my private life.

You literally can't go for a shite without someone knowing about it if you take your mobile phone with you.

What i would suggest is watch a documentary film called Erasing David ( Erasing David (2009) - IMDb) which was on TV last week. I watched it when it first came out and was astounded, even the technology used last year to spy on people is probably obsolete now.

the Ceausescu's would love this country now, they would, if they were alive, be having orgasms at the total control of the people by the state.
 
#18
I believe that there have been a number of "near misses" due to the inadequacy of DNA evidence. Most infamously, a convicted burglar whose DNA was found at the scene of a very nasty incident where a burglar broke in to an upstairs window, raped and battered the occupant of the house. A DNA match plus a history of previous burglary convictions meant that the rape squad had him arrested and they were all home in time for dinner.

He was within weeks of a Crown Court trial before the CPS accepted that he suffered from a wasting disease that meant he could hardly walk, never mind climb into an upstairs window. Had he not been "lucky" enough to be crippled, he might be banged up for life for a crime he didn't commit.

The basis of this near miscarriage of justice was the inadequacy of government DNA testing. It costs a packet to determine somebody's complete genetic fingerprint. Hence the government only test a tiny DNA fragment when people are arrested.

The bottom line is that you can share your DNA "fingerprint" with up to a thousand other people in the UK alone. If one of them happens to be Jack the Ripper, Rapist or Racist, you could be deep in the sh1t through no fault of your own. Nothing to hide? You've still got plenty to fear.
 
#19
Hear Hear, if you have nothing to hide what is so objectionable about the Police having evidence which would exclude you from their enquiries? In My Opinion EVERYONE in the UK should have their DNA taken and EVERYONE should have a national Identity card by law.

Nothing to hide? then you have nothing to fear...BUT, and it is indeed a very very big BUT, the control of that information must be scrupilously adhered to.... and that is where the scheme would probably fail.
Dear God, man, have you thought seriously about that?

The theory may work, the practice is dangerous hogwash. Anyone who really thinks that the DNA database would not be misused is remarkably naive. I give you two examples; if you are a Jew, your DNA will show it. As I remember, that little escapade ended badly. The other obvious reason we should never allow the police to get their slimy hands on a universal DNA database is the same reason that we don't give the police a set of our door keys or access to our bank accounts. It's a little thing called privacy. And we don't have to justify that to any fcuker.

Some crimes may be solved thereby, but it is far, far more likely to result in HMRC or the police going on fishing expeditions with YOU as the target. The Jewish question is reason alone to never, ever allow the police such powers.

In a Munich street in 1937 "So, Herr Rosenblum, your papers, please. As a good German citizen, if you have nothing to hide, you will of course have nothing to fear from us in the Geheime Staatspolizei..."
 
#20
You talk about the rule of law bit where is the law that is being broken? What democratically elected body enacted that law?

In a democracy a law is wrong I can elect a government to change it. Who can I elect to change this Euro law?



Sent from my iPhone using ARRSE so please excuse fat fingers and slips of the keyboard.


The treaty of 1953 was entered into by the government of the day. If it is the will of Parliament that the Government should withdraw from its obligations to the Council of Europe, then the government may either give in to political pressure to do so, or it may ignore Parliament and assert the prerogative as our constitution allows it to.

Exactly the same position obtained when the Blair Government allowed a vote in Parliament at the start of the Iraq War. The decision whether or not to go to war falls within the prerogative. In giving Parliament a say, the government would have been faced with exactly the position they are in today had the vote in Parliament at that time been against the decision to go to war with Iraq.

In answer to your question, those you elect have the power to place political pressure on the government to renounce the treaty. Whether the executive will allow its prerogative powers to be subjected to the will of Parliament remains to be seen.

It is generally accepted at the moment, that the vote on Friday carries no force under our current domestic constitutional arrangements.

The Convention of itself does not penetrate English Law. The United Kingdom is a ‘dualist’ state which means that unlike ‘monist states’ whose legal systems will directly enforce international treaties, our system requires an Act of Parliament to incorporate them into domestic law. In this case, most, but not all Convention Rights are incorporated into domestic law under section 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998. This Act allows our courts to apply convention rights but it severely circumscribes the ability of the English courts to override a statute. Our courts here do not enjoy the same powers as the US Supreme Court has to apply the constitution to override a statute.

Even if the Human Rights Act 1998 was repealed, and we are thrown back to the position we were in prior to 2000 when the Act came into force, the International Treaty which gave effect to it would still be in place although our courts would not be bound to apply it (although in practice they did even before the 1998 Act came into effect). The United Kingdom Government would still be bound to recognise the authority of the convention although it would not be legally binding on the courts nor could Crown Subject petition our domestic courts to enforce it.

The only way in which the Convention could be neutralised is for the Government to either withdraw from the Treaty, or remove the right of Crown Subjects to petition the European Court Directly. It is extremely unlikely that a government, about to debate a so-called ‘Freedom Bill’ in Parliament with the objective of reversing years of authoritarian law, is at the same time to become an international political Parriah and laughing stock by ignoring its treaty obligations or denying its subjects the right to petition the European Court directly.

This is an issue that has nothing whatever to do with the influence of Europe and everything to do with our own domestic constitution which, by convention, allows the executive and not Parliament to determine what, it any international treaties it will be bound by.
 

Similar threads

Top