The government has flashed its left-wing authoritarian credentials again by suggesting that police should be allowed to pass judgement on people without going through the ‘inconvenience’ of a trial.
The government should recognise, as I do, that punishments are currently too weak and take too long to reach court — that doesn’t mean we do away with the court or, indeed, justice…
Gah!
Your first post will be moderated -- if it is not spam and is not illegal it will be approved. Subsequent posts by you will automatically be approved.
Some words will automatically cause your comment to be blacklisted and there will be no warning. Avoid referring to the names of pharmaceutical drugs. If in doubt, copy your comment so that you can paste and amend it.
Apologies for any inconvenience; blame the spammers
August 15th, 2006 at 11:01 pm
Do you happen to know what the Conservative party position is on summary justice?
It just does not get through that they are against these authoritarian moves, and will if elected redress the balance of the citizen v the state.
August 15th, 2006 at 11:05 pm
To be honest that message won’t get through when the crux of Cameron’s press conference was on utilising Labour’s draconian anti-’terror’ legislation.
I suspect Cameron thinks he’s going to win LibDems over with a liberal outlook on things and that the ‘mood’ will make anti-authoritarianism a given…
August 15th, 2006 at 11:14 pm
Yeah its outrageous a lot of people keep work equipment or documents in their car so even if the car wasn’t valuable its still a big loss.
Last night I saw “Animal Rescue” the guy said he had to build up a rappor with the residence because he doesn’t have the ‘powers’ to take action without it and he was looking forward to a change in the law!
Well just great!
The reality is if the law is changed the way he wants people will become a lot more hostile to him.
August 16th, 2006 at 8:47 am
Summary justice is illegal, when will the UK government stop trying to illegally mete out penalties without convictions? Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights are both being broken constantly.
August 16th, 2006 at 8:49 am
You are probably right in that Cameron wishes to attract LibDem`s; oddly I was going to add to my previous post that the only party which has made it clear that in principal it stands against authoritarianism is the LibDem`s.
I would say that I was not just speaking of Mr Cameron or the Conservative party since he became leader, I have written to my own MP (now Conservative) and to other leading shadow cabinet members about increased powers of the state v the citizen., unfortunately their reply’s leave a lot to be desired. I get the distinct impression that the parliamentary conservative party is quite happy to allow this authoritarianism knowing that in the fullness of time they will inherit the mantle of power.
I should point out that I feel conservative and until the last election I have always voted Conservative, I like many others are looking for a reason to return to their natural party. To be honest all I am seeing and hearing is causing me to belive that there is very little to choose between this administration and a subsequent conservative administration.
August 16th, 2006 at 8:53 am
And even if people believe we have changed, they will always have the memory of the authoritarianism of Thatcher’s era…
We must all (and I mean all) make it clear that authoritarianism is an object of the left-wing and that we’ll not return to it ever!
August 16th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
We need a clearly defined set of objectives to reintroduce the citizen’s protection from the state;
No punishment, fines or forfeitures without trial in every case, this includes mandatory fines for parking for late tax returns etc. They are all illegal under English Common Law.
The right to silence, (it is up to the police to prove their case rather than the defendant to prove innocence)
The right to choose trial by jury in every case, (the claims that this is not workable are nothing more than demands for state power over the individual. Their might well be some alternatives offered but the state should be prepared to prove its case, should the defendant choose trial by jury.
The right for the jury to maintain its independence and find against the evidence is crucial and is a long stop against the power of the state over the individual. Any argument against, however framed by whomever are nothing more than a demand that we the British people give up hard won protections from state power.
Only the police to have the power of entry and search and then only with a search warrant issued by a magistrate, independently of the police. All other agencies would have to work through the police system and convince the police that they require their assistance. Including tax inspectors, local animal protection officers, local planning officers, child protection officers etc. Exception for health and safety officers on commercial promises and perhaps some others.
No more of this any agency office being allowed to be judge jury and executioner, so a very clear division of powers.
No more immunity of any agency from the laws of this country, if it is illegal for a person under the age of 18 to purchase alcohol then it cannot be right that the police or the weights and measures officers send under age people into shops with the clear instructions to purchase alcohol.
No laws to be introduced in this country without passing fully through both houses of parliament.
No more unelected and unaccountable agencies and transnational organizations having power greater than our own elected parliamentarians.
The full and clear protection by the state of the individual against any international organisation or their officers, no extradition of a British national without a full hearing and examination of the evidence before a British court. No foreign agency officers to have any power over a British citizen within this country
No immunity for any agency officer either national or international. The EU police fore for instance.
No government private police force accountable only to the state. The new police force this government has introduced, which sidesteps the normal police channels and is only accountable to the home sectary.
There are many more, I would like to belive that a Conservative Government would make a very clear policy statement that it would ensure the protection of the individual against the state, by rolling back the recent incursion on our basic liberties.
But then it would have to face up to the fact that a lot of international treaties and agreements specify exactly the opposite or make it impossible to differentiate between a British person and a non British person.
August 16th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
Ken said: “I would like to believe that a Conservative Government would make a very clear policy statement that it would ensure the protection of the individual against the state, by rolling back the recent incursion on our basic liberties.”
Dream on, Ken. It’s all about revenue. Big bucks. And that’s all that matters to them. And they’re all the same whatever the party - a bunch of money-grabbing, toe-sucking, expenses-fiddling thieves.
Not that I’m cynical……..
August 16th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
Gavin, did you know that you’re on a campaign together with a BNP member? The Better off out campaign, which you joined, has put a BNP member on its supporters list.
August 17th, 2006 at 8:26 am
Ken, I agree on every point but this one:
No more immunity of any agency from the laws of this country, if it is illegal for a person under the age of 18 to purchase alcohol then it cannot be right that the police or the weights and measures officers send under age people into shops with the clear instructions to purchase alcohol.
It is not illegal for a minor to buy alcohol, it is illegal to sell alcohol to a minor! This, therefore, is a good test of people’s compliance with the law.
Also, the Conservative’s Built to Last booklet does say that there should be reduced power for the state. The UK Daily Pundit does have a valid point, though, there is evidence that politicians of all major parties have their fingers in pies.
Graham, I do not support the BNP (which is extreme left-wing in my view) and I am surprised that the Better Off Out campaign would include a member of that party on its supporters list… But at the same time, that doesn’t change the validity of the argument!
August 17th, 2006 at 9:07 am
It is not illegal for a minor to buy alcohol, it is illegal to sell alcohol to a minor! This, therefore, is a good test of people’s compliance with the law.
Sorry Gav you are mistaken, see licening act 2005 16.5
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30017–h.htm#146
(1) An individual aged under 18 commits an offence if-
(a) he buys or attempts to buy alcohol, or
(b) where he is a member of a club-
(i) alcohol is supplied to him or to his order by or on behalf of the club, as a result of some act or default of his, or
(ii) he attempts to have alcohol supplied to him or to his order by or on behalf of the club.
(2) But subsection (1) does not apply where the individual buys or attempts to buy the alcohol at the request of-
(a) a constable, or
(b) a weights and measures inspector,
who is acting in the course of his duty.
(3) A person commits an offence if-
(a) he buys or attempts to buy alcohol on behalf of an individual aged under 18, or
(b) where he is a member of a club, on behalf of an individual aged under 18 he-
(i) makes arrangements whereby alcohol is supplied to him or to his order by or on behalf of the club, or
(ii) attempts to make such arrangements.
August 17th, 2006 at 10:03 am
Oops, sorry! Then I agree with all your points…
August 17th, 2006 at 10:04 am
I understand that test purchasing is there to check compliance with the law, but it undermines a couple of the basic tenets of English Law.
That we are all equal under the law, and innocent until proven guilty, sending an undercover agent in with the clear intention of enticing a shopkeeper to break the law, used to be illegal, and any case would be thrown out if it was shown that the police acted as the instigator and were complicit in the crime.
The 2003 licensing act is an example of the problems we face with our elected representatives and this administration in particular, the idea seems to be that the ends justify the means and the basic rights of the citizen and the basic law can be simply ignored if they stand in the way of government enforcement of its preferences.
The fact is that our basic rights were fought for in the first place to kerb an overzealous state, this is why we for instance have a division of powers of the state, a policemen cannot just enter a property without gaining permission from a separate authority, he could only get that permission if he had good cause, this was a protection for the citizen who knew that should a policeman turn up on his doorstep without a warrant he had no right of entry.
Thanks to the 2003 licensing act that is no longer the case any policeman or authorised person (local council) may at any time enter any premises if they belive that the premises are being or are about to be used for a licensable activity. It is an offence to obstruct the police or authorised person using these powers, and that those using these powers can also use force.
It should be remembered that a licensable activity is not just the sale of alcohol but include such things as performance of a play, exhibition of a film, indoor sporting event, performance of live music, playing recorded music, performance of a dance, and that the term any premises means exactly that any premises.
We have already seen that laws introduced for one reason are willing used by the police for an unrelated reason; the 2003 licence act gives any policeman the right of entry and search of any premises all he has to say later is that he thought that a licensable activity was about to take place.
It also invests other people with police powers, who are not police trained and do not have a sworn duty to uphold the laws of the state, local council officers for instance.
August 29th, 2006 at 9:47 pm
I’m very glad that you’re surprised about Better off Out too. I’m not really entering into the vaildity of BOO’s arguments as they are a perfectly legitimate part of political discussion. I’m not really interested in engaging on whether they are extreme-right, neo-fascist or anything else.
I know that I would remove my name from a list that contained BNP members if they campaign were not willing to remove it. I hope you will too.