Big Sticks and Small Carrots

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha…

It’d be even funnier if the government were not wasting huge amounts of money on a monumental disaster waiting to happen.

The good news is that “plans to force passport applicants to get an ID card have been dropped”. Did Jacqui Smith take that decision on a voluntary basis, I wonder? I only ask because Labour’s commitment to roll out ID cards “initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports” was a real lowlight in knowingly mendacious politics. How satisfying to see it fail to do anything other than highlight just how knowingly mendacious they are prepared to be.

Nevertheless, the government appear to be keen to press on with some ad hoc version of this scheme despite the fact that this half-baked version negates many of the arguments they used to justify its creation in the first place. It’s like watching a not very good and all too predictable farce. A happy ending is highly unlikely.

Good News!

Really.

Back in January, I wrote about the government’s consultation on “managing protest”. Part of the consultation suggested a “harmonisation” of certain powers to control protest, “harmonisation” in this case clearly being a euphemism for “increase”.

Yesterday, in the Lords, questions were asked regarding this issue. The first, from Baroness Miller (Lib Dem), provoked no real answer. The second, however, did:

Viscount Bridgeman (Conservative): My Lords, can the Minister confirm that no measures will be taken to extend the restrictive and undemocratic powers relating to protests around Parliament to other parts of the country?

Lord West of Spithead (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Security and Counter-terrorism), Home Office): My Lords, I can confirm that we do not intend to do that. I do not know the exact timelines but when we consider the matter we will have to review the 500 responses—some of which were very robust, I am glad to say, because I understand people’s feelings and emotions about this. We have no intention whatever to change and increase the rules in regard to the rest of England and Wales.

Try as I might, I can’t see any get out clauses there. “We have no intention whatever to change and increase the rules” is about as clear a statement as you’re ever likely to get from a politician. It looks as if the government has abandoned any attempt to “harmonise” these powers. The possibility even exists that the responses to the consultation may have had some bearing on this decision.

(One word of caution. Lord West has been known to have a sudden change of heart on occasion. Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that he’d make such an unequivocal statement on this without being sure he knew what he was talking about.)

All we need now is for the ridiculous laws governing protests around parliament to be scrapped and it’ll be time to have a wee celebration. In Parliament Square. Without prior permission from the police.

Now wouldn’t that be something?

Back in October 2007, Gordon Brown announced a review of the laws governing demonstrations in the area around parliament. He said:

While balancing the need for public order with the right to public dissent, I think it right – in consultation with the Metropolitan Police, Parliament, the Mayor of London, Westminster City Council and liberties groups – to change the laws that now restrict the right to demonstrate in Parliament Square.

Anyone even slightly familiar with ‘politician speak’ will have spotted that this is not much of a commitment. Nevertheless, before the “change” in the law, a public consultation was duly established and the deadline for replies is 17th January. Further information can be found courtesy of the repeal SOCPA website.

I’d like to draw your attention to the first two questions in the consultation paper. They are not, in fact, concerned with restrictions on demonstrations in the “designated area” around parliament; their scope is somewhat larger than that. Here they are:

1. The Government believes peaceful protest is a vital part of a democratic society, and that the police should have powers to manage public assemblies and processions to respond to the potential for disorder. Should the powers generally in relation to marches and assemblies be the same?
2. Do you agree that the conditions that can be imposed on assemblies and marches should be harmonised?

Has your internal alarm gone off yet? It should be wailing like a banshee.

First of all, remember that these questions relate to the whole country*, not just the designated area. Here’s a quick summary of the powers the police currently have to control marches.

Organisers must give six days advance notice to the police.

Organisers must specify “the date when it is intended to hold the procession, the time when it is intended to start it, its proposed route, and the name and address of the person (or one of the persons) proposing to organise it”.

The senior police officer, if he “reasonably believes” the march may may result in “serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community” or “reasonably believes” that “the purpose of the persons organising it is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or do an act they have a right not to do”, can impose wide ranging conditions on the march.

If the senior police officer “reasonably believes” that the imposition of conditions would not prevent serious public disorder, he can apply to the relevant council to prohibit a march. (In London, the application is made directly to the Home Secretary.)

The laws on assembly (two or more persons in a public place in the open air) are not quite so far reaching. Yet.

Outside the “designated area” the law does not require that the police are given six days notice of an assembly.

The senior police officer may impose limited conditions on these static demonstrations if he “reasonably believes” all that stuff as above about “serious public disorder” etc..

The authorities currently do not have the power to prohibit static demonstrations.

If I was to ask in which direction you think the government wants to move in order to “harmonise” these powers, I’d just be being facetious. A relaxation of the laws on the control of processions is clearly not what they are after. No, the sweet harmony they want to play is to introduce wide ranging new powers to control demonstrations throughout the country. If they succeed, many of the absurdities of the current SOCPA laws regarding demonstrations in the “designated area” would apply much more widely. “Harmonisation” would mean that two Amnesty International volunteers trying to raise awareness and attract new members on your local high street on a Saturday afternoon would have to give the police six days notice of their intentions.

The government probably does intend to make some small adjustments to the SOCPA restrictions. A minor relaxation of the outrageously heavy handed SOCPA regulations might just interest the media enough to distract them from the government’s sweeping new controls. “Brown Champions Freedom” will be the entirely inaccurate message the government will be hoping to sell.

All the details on the public consultation are here and you can email submissions so there’s still time to have your say. (Not much mind. The consultation closes on the 17th.) If you’ve never taken part in a public consultation, I recommend you do it now. You know, while it’s still legal for you to express your opinion at all…

* To be entirely honest, I’ve not managed to work out whether this includes Scotland. I believe it does but don’t quote me on that. At the very least, it covers England and Wales.

Back from that London after a thoroughly enjoyable trip.

º<[] :o)

Tim has all the details of the anti-Christmas carol service outside parliament. If you want to hear some merry bloggers singing badly, click through. As you might be able to tell, we had a lot of fun while proving the point.

Beforehand, I met Tim and Justin for the first time and has a great time being a small town boy in the big city. Thanks guys!
(Clearly, this public statement provides further proof - as if it were needed - that Iain Dale was right to call me one of Tim’s “sockpuppets” and part of a vast left-wing conspiracy…)

It was also great to meet Davide, Mat and D-Notice at the carol service and also John who brought his sax.

Bah humbug, one and all!

Man flu! Bah! Sniff, cough, splutter…

Fortunately, this decision by the Metropolitan Police doesn’t really need much in the way of comment. You just need to sit and think about it for a moment.

If you wanted to support Christmas by organising a counter-demonstration against our demonstration, would you need permission for that?

If you were really, really cynical, you could build a brilliant conspiracy out HMRC’s astonishing behaviour.

The lost discs contain an enormous amount of information which would be useful to identity thieves . The information on the discs is password protected but not encrypted so it really isn’t very secure at all. (If the Conservatives had been in power, the password would probably be 1234 but that’s by the way.) The government have created what is essentially a Holy Grail for organised criminals and identify fraudsters. The difference being that these discs definitely do exist, of course.

If they do fall into the wrong hands, it’s almost certainly going to lead an increase in identity spoofing and other identity related crimes.

And if identity related crimes are on the increase, well, that’ll just confirm the need for the government to implement it’s secure and infallible National Identity Register and ID Card scheme…

In reality, the idea that this was in any way intentional is a non-starter. You only needed to see Alistair Darling’s face as he addressed the House to know that. In fact, I have marked this with the introduction of a new post category - “Incompetence”. Incompetence on a really extraordinary scale was what this undoubtedly was.

If in due course we did see an increase in identity related crimes because of this however, who would really be surprised if the government argued that this was a clear sign that we should trust them with even more of our own personal details?

(Changing the subject completely, blogging might be slightly hit and run here for a few more days. That “time” has a lot to answer for, I tell you.)

Gordon Brown is now determined to build a consensus on the required length of the extension to the current 28 day limit.

That attitude conveniently overlooks the fact that the government has not made a convincing case for an extension of any sort. Lord West accidentally pointed this out yesterday. One instant audience with the Prime Minister later, he was very quickly back-pedalling.

Lord West isn’t a professional politician. He wasn’t to know that government ministers are not supposed to highlight the intellectual bankruptcy of the government’s position. He’ll learn, I suppose.

The other day, I listened to the Home Secretary attempting to make the case for an extension. It was the ridiculous hypothetical situations she grasped at which really gave the game away. I would have attempted to take on her arguments but I couldn’t find any arguments to speak of to challenge.

The one argument the government can’t make in public is the one which is really pushing this on. Gordon Brown needs to be seen to be doing something. The status quo is not an option.

It doesn’t seem like a very good reason to me.

There is clearly vital and compelling evidence of the need to extend the maximum period of detention without charge to 90, no, 28, no, 56, no, 47 days, 4 hours, 18 minutes and 29.5 seconds.

No, let’s try that again.

There is clearly vital and compelling evidence of the need to extend the maximum period of detention. I hope MPs don’t rue the day they refuse to acknowledge the vital and compelling evidence of the need extend the maximum period of detention without charge to 90, no, 28…

Drat.

One more try.

There is clearly vital and compelling evidence of the need for Gordon Brown to be seen to be doing something.

And we’re off.

According to the Guardian:

There is evidence that Gordon Brown has not yet formed any strong personal opinion and he is said to remain “genuinely open-minded” on his preferred option.

Much as I’d like to be optimistic, this is probably a reference to Brown being genuinely open-minded on the length of the extension needed, not on whether one is needed at all.*

But it’s no wonder he hasn’t made up his mind yet; there are serious issues to be considered here. Would an extra 14 days be enough to convey the sense of a competent, trusted statesman dealing responsibly with a complicated issue? Would going for an extra 28 days so soon after the last doubling add a suggestion of gravitas and decisiveness or would it look Blairish and hysterical?

It’s not an easy call.

To pass the time while Gordon decides what’s needed, feel free to submit your guesses below. There won’t be any prizes if you get it right, I’m afraid, but on the plus side, participation is unlikely to lead to entrants being imprisoned without charge for up to three, no, one, no, two months.

Every cloud and all that.

* I’d be more than happy to be proved wrong.

Check out these two, ahem, unrelated, ahem, pieces of news today.

Terror limit ‘could be doubled’

The 28-day limit on holding terror suspects without charge is likely to be doubled by the government.

Home Office Minister Tony McNulty said the government wanted to extend the limit, “probably” to 56 days.

‘Thousands’ pose UK terror threat

There are at least 2,000 people in the UK who pose a threat to national security because of their support for terrorism, the head of MI5 has said.

Jonathan Evans said there had been a rise of 400 since November 2006.

Hmm.

It appears that the new head of MI5 is participating in a co-ordinated attempt to set the news agenda in preparation for Gordon Brown’s first Queen’s speech tomorrow. And, if the news bulletins I’ve heard this evening are anything to go by, he has succeeded.

Because using the secret services to disseminate fear in order to generate support for a proposed government policy is a hallmark of a truly democratic country…

Do you know how sometimes you’ve got a post worked out in your head and just before you go to write it, you find that someone else has only gone and done it already but better?

Ta da!