Compare And Contrast

In the UK, we send a lot of people to prison. And as a result in the UK we get stories like this

Titan prisons plans 'abandoned'...Instead, Justice Secretary Jack Straw is expected to reveal proposals for five 1,500-place jails, with two set to go ahead immediately...
Shadow justice secretary Dominic Grieve said..."Jack Straw needs to urgently explain how he will address the current crisis in the prison population that has resulted in thousands of prisoners being released early".

I particularly like the use of scare quotes around the word abandoned there. Mostly because Titan prisons aren't really being 'abandoned', just scaled down slightly.

Meanwhile, over in The Netherlands;

Netherlands to close prisons for lack of criminals. The Dutch justice ministry has announced it will close eight prisons and cut 1,200 jobs in the prison system. A decline in crime has left many cells empty.
...The overcapacity is a result of the declining crime rate, which the ministry's research department expects to continue for some time.

It's being widely reported that Labour are anticipating a proper fucking up at the polls next week and again (oh please oh please) at the general election next year. That means a lot of Labour MPs are going to be at a loose end. And you know, it really would be a shame to see the Labour party's skill at making every fucking thing illegal go to waste. And I think it's pretty clear that Holland needs a hand filling up it's prisons (I mean, where on earth are the Dutch putting their mentally ill for bum's sake?). It could be a match made in heaven.

Try Sticking The Handbrake On

Really Mr McKeevor? This is what you're going with?

“A lot of that is based on people taking ill-informed positions. Demonstrations like that are extremely difficult to police and a lot of the criticism has been very unfair. There is a broad-ranging bandwagon rolling and it is of concern. There seems to be a disconnection between commentators in the media and the public, and what it is that police officers do.”

You don't think that recent murmurs of concern coming from the public and parts of the government over the style used to police the recent G20 protests may actually have some basis in fact at all? I don't know, maybe you've been too busy thinking up your little defensive speech there to take a squint at some of the videos, pictures and accounts that have been pouring into places like the IPCC. Maybe you should have a quick peek. You see, otherwise, it sounds a bit like you think whacking people in the face with riot shields, or dishing out back-handers to feisty bystanders or shoving sauntering men to the pavement is all a reasonable part of policing legal and overwhelmingly peaceful protest.

The fact that the metropolitan police described themseves as 'up for it' before G20, that officers were largely dressed like a cross between the racing car baddies from an A-Ha video and Deathstar storm-troopers, that officers concealed identifying numbers and covered their faces, that they were rather too free and easy with the old nightstick, surely that is actually relevant to some of what took place during the protests? It can't really be that difficult to imagine that footage of police misusing the Public Order Act to order the press to clear an area for no reason other than 'we say so' might leave people feeling a touch uneasy about the direction policing might be heading in? And looking beyond G20, I don't think that questioning the pre-emptive arrest of protestors constitutes unfair criticism.

I do actually have some sympathy for the police. I'm sure it is difficult to police a large, increasingly (if understandably) hostile crowd of people. And some of the videos and photographs alleging police brutality are pretty ridiculous, perhaps even lacking any merit at all. But let's face it, there wouldn't be a fucking 'anti-police bandwagon' for members of the public to jump on in the first place if the police hadn't provided the materials themselves and then got busy with cobbling the vehicle together.

(Hat-Tip Chicken Yoghurt)

Nothing To Fear

A month or so ago I planned on travelling into London to catch the end of the Taking Liberties exhibition at the British Library. I'd suddenly got it into my head that I just had to have a look at the Magna Carta before it got chucked into a furnace or wherever it is the government plans on taking it to be destroyed. I'd even talked my mum into coming with me and before I knew it a day out had been planned.
The day I intended to go was the day after the Convention On Modern Liberty and it was partly that event that had inspired me to attend the exhibition in the first place. It was also indirectly responsible for me abandoning all my plans and going to a craft fair instead.
A couple of nights before we were due to go, and after having read some of the articles and blog posts folks had written in the lead up to the convention, I suddenly became frightened about going to London. It wasn't a sudden horror of being blown up by terrorists on the underground that got my stomach churning. It wasn't the prospect of aggressive beggars that sent my heart into palpitations. Nope. I was terrified of being stopped and searched by the police.
Initially this fear seemed absolutely irrational. After all, I've nothing to hide, right? I don't have a beard. I prefer a small shoulder bag to a gigantic rucksack. I carry a mobile only under duress. Why on earth would the police be remotely interested in me?
But the thing that kept gnawing at me was that I do not own anything even vaguely resembling i.d. If I was stopped and searched at the train station, as I believe the scuffers now like to do I couldn't produce i.d. even if I wanted to. And I gradually convinced myself that the simple fact I wouldn't be carrying any identifying information would be enough to get me carted off to Paddington Green.
Of course, I was being ridiculous. Right? There's no law that actually compels me to carry i.d. whilst travelling (YET)But there's also no law against photographing drain covers and that still gets a fella arrested. There's also no law against lighting a fag near a police van but that apparently get's you smacked with a big stick, knocked to the ground and denied appropriate medical assistance.
The point is that the prospect of an unlikely, but still entirely possible encounter with the police, no matter how minor, left me feeling so fearful that I abandoned my plans. The possibility of not being able to defend perfectly run-of-the-mill aspects of my life in the event of police questioning worried me so much that I chose to avoid London altogether.
And if I could be put off simply travelling into London to go to a museum based on a few Henry Porter articles and youtube videos of people being threatened with arrest for asking questions, then imagine how much easier it will be to frighten people out of attending protests or other high profile events if you face the prospect of kettling, being arrested on spurious terrorism charges and "polite, proportionate and pragmatic" policing in the form of a baton in the back of the legs and a hard shove to the floor.

The Listener

According to The Observer, Jack Straw has had some sort of flash of insight and now reckons he suddenly "understand people's anxiety" over the data-sharing proposals that were to be included in the forthcoming Coroners and Justice Bill under Clause 152. He goes onto claim with no sense of irony whatsoever that "I have never had a piece of legislation that was not improved by public debate during its passage through parliament."

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. Oh wait, he's being serious. Let me laugh harder. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Mercy.

Anyway, he's going to do us all a personal favour and take out all that stuff allowing whoever to compile whatever and use it for everything, not because he's really understood 'people's anxieties' that the law would allow for gross invasion of privacy (privacy clearly being something only a terrorist would want), that it would give rise to fears that the laws would allow for spying and are yet another blow to personal freedom and civil liberties. No. Come on. There were totally going to be safeguards. And it's not as if laws passed for one thing have been used inappropriately in the past or anything. Why would you even think that? Come off it. It's just that the public haven't properly understood the proposals. Hence the need, according to the article, for

a fresh public consultation on how to implement more limited proposals...which would allow government bodies to share information where there is clear benefit...

In other words, give us a minute to talk you all round and it'll be fine.

Clause 152

After coming across this request at Boing Boing and reading a little more about the proposed law and it's potential impact here I felt motivated to contact my own MP to register my concerns.

Dear Mr Boswell,
I'm not somebody who usually bothers to contact my MP over anything as I understand that my voice is simply one of many you have to listen to. I would, however, like to register my very strong objection to the provisions of Clause 152 of the Coroners and Justice Bill which I believe is currently being debated in the House Of Commons, and ask that you vote against the bill itself if this clause in particular is not removed.
I understand that under the proposed Information Sharing Order (ISO), any personal data about an individual obtained for one purpose could be passed on and used for another entirely different purpose without seeking the consent of the individual concerned. The idea that control over and access to my personal data including, as I understand it, sensitive information such as my medical records will be taken entirely out of my hands and handed over to the state to give away to whoever wants it is frankly terrifying to me. It must be up to me to decide what organisations or businesses can have access to my personal information, and for what purpose they can use it, and not the government. Clause 152 (along with the wider bill) is not only yet another threat to individual privacy and liberty but it also undermines existing data protection law. There is also the fact that for all it's claimed safeguards, the governement has proved time and again that it cannot be trusted to protect our personal data as made clear with the numerous high profile losses of confidential files.
Most troubling of all is the fact that this proposed law, the impact of which would be enormous, has been slipped in at the end of a controversial bill full of legislation that will draw most attention from the media and the wider public, as well as most, if not all, parliamentary time given to debating it. It is vital that clause 152 is debated openly and thoroughly as the government has absolutely no mandate for the proposals made.
Should this law come into being I would like it on record that I refuse to give my consent to having my details shared in this way.

I got a reply from my MP today which was short, but positive and indicated sympathy for my views. It would also appear that, perhaps fortunately, Tim Boswell (Con) is serving on a commitee that will be considering the Bill in detail. According to They Work For You Boswell has voted against ID card legislation and the like in the past which makes me a little bit hopeful that this part of the Coroners and Justice Bill at least will be abandoned or scaled back. But, judging by Boswell's tendency to vote strongly in-line with his party's position, this small amount of hope is dependant upon the Tory party as a whole being opposed to this law as well.