Now, whilst I fully accept that this will not make one jot of difference to the current Labour government it is nonetheless, symbolic given it demonstrates that the government will have an uphill struggle to introduce identity cards. Scottish MSP’s do not believe ID cards will increase security or deter crime and quite frankly, nor do I. I don’t find myself agreeing with many Scottish MP’s at the moment, but I am more than happy to applaud their stance on this particular issue.

The reality is, identity cards are a genuine, tangible and unacceptable threat to the civil liberties and right to privacy of British citizens. No government minister has told the people of this country howID cards will deter crime and reduce the risk of terrorism, only that they will. That is not the way to sell a programme like this. However, as we all know, this government does not believe in asking, only telling, so they intend to introduce these cards come what may, simply because they are arrogant enough to believe that government knows best. Can anyone watch Jacqui Smith bumbling and stuttering away and say, with any conviction, that they feel safer with her at the helm? I think not, she is out of her depth, ill-informed and an appalling communicator.

Richard Baker a Labour MSP, no I hadn’t heard of him either, said “There’s nothing extreme or unusual in the introduction of ID cards and the kind of data which will be on them.” There is nothing clever in attempting to mislead the public. This government have already made clear that they intend to include a mass of data on ID cards, from bio-metrics, though to health and financial details. These little cards will end up being our own ‘police tags’. It has nothing to do with deterring crime and combating terrorism and everything to do with government attempts at controlling the people of this country. They can sod off!

Already, in what has become an all consuming quest to control and punish the people of this country, this government has indicated the “penalties” that will be applied if people fail to provide the government with updated details for their ID cards. Even though ID cards haven’t been launched for the masses yet, we are bombarded with our likely punishment for non-compliance. We are being treated like naughty schoolchildren, not adults capable of making decisions and running our own lives. Government ministers say that the penalties are not there to raise revenue and for once I believe them, instead, they are there to punish those that would dare to resist the will of our masters in government. In other words, by introducing fines and making non-compliance a criminal offence, they are seeking to control the will of the people of this country through fear, many people will doubtless be able to draw a parallel with a police state.

Phil Booth, national coordinator of NO2ID sums it up very well, “There is some very nasty stuff buried in the fine print of this consultation document. Basically, you have to tell them everything they want to know about you under threat - and pay for the privilege.”

Any party in power that would seek to introduce a programme against the will of the public is not fit for government. The bottom line is terrorists and criminals will always find a way around ID cards, just as they have been able to forge passports, drivers licenses and any other identity document you care to mention. The government know this, therefore, we should all be asking ourselves, what is the real game plan? This particular issue is not about party politics, it is about individual freedom, the rights of people in this country to not just be free, but to feel free.

Through its policies and inept handling of the economy, this government has removed our financial freedom. With the introduction of a raft of so called ‘anti-terror’ laws, they have already removed many of our civil liberties and rights to privacy. They now seek to go even further. ID cards, NHS Database, ContactPoint, DNA database to name but a few. It is time for us all to not only call a halt to all this, but to insist that any future government and MP’s undertake to repeal many of these destructive, draconian, obtrusive and unreasonable laws. If the main opposition parties refuse to take up the mantle, then perhaps there is a very good case for the public to support and vote for independent MP’s rather than those affiliated with a particular political party. In fact, I would very much like to see more independent MP’s put themselves forward with a local manifesto. Perhaps the bloggers should unite!

News that the Data Communication Bill has been shelved will be welcomed by all those that have campaigned against it. Needless to say, the government claim that it has nothing to do with those that are against this Big Brother Britain bill and everything to do with the fact that MP’s need to concentrate on the economy.

I suspect it has far more to do with the fact that the government needs a controversial bill like a hole in the head, the estimated cost of £12bn is going to be criticised in the current climate and they want to clear the decks for an early election to take advantage of Labour’s poll bounce. Whatever the case, it is unlikely that any attempt will be made to reintroduce the bill until 2011 and hopefully, by that time, New Labour will be history. Predictably, the police are complaining that it will hinder their efforts to fight crime and terrorism, well perhaps if they got off their backsides and did what they were paid to do, there would not be a need to spy on 65m people.

The police in this country have more powers than virtually any other country in the world and yet they still whine. They also have 167,000 police officers, but I have to confess, I haven’t seen one in the last 2 weeks, plenty of community support officers, but no real coppers, no wonder they want to spy on us all. This bill should actually be scrapped and its predecessor, which provides many of the same rights, save a legal requirement that service providers must keep the information for 2 years, should be repealed. Only then can we be certain that state sponsored voyeurism is being rolled back.

I don’t want to get into a debate as to the rights and wrongs of whether people should agree to donate their organs, although I am willing to state, for the record, that I support the organ donor programme. What concerns me is when government, in spite of advice to the contrary, determines that it knows best.

The UK Organ Donation Taskforce have stated that they do not believe that ‘presumed consent’ would boost organ donation rates. In fact chair of the taskforce, Elisabeth Buggins said: “We found from recipient families and donor families that the concept of gift was very important to them and presumed consent would undermine that concept.” This was not what the government wanted to hear and Alan Johnson was said to be disappointed by their findings, Gordon Brown was a little more forthright. He has threatened, that if the current recruitment campaign is not successful, he would not rule our a change of the law to provide for presumed consent.

Just who the hell does Gordon Brown think he is? He has no right to determine that he knows better than 65m people. For some, the desecration of the body of a loved one would only add to the suffering and for others, they may see organ donation as a positive consequence of a tragic circumstance. Either way, the choice cannot be the governments, they do not own us, nor do they own our bodies. This is yet another example of Big Brother Britain, another way in which the state tells us who is in charge and how little control we have over our own lives.

As we all know, this government cannot be trusted to keep its word, whatever assurances they may provide in public regarding presumed consent, we just know the small print will provide them with the real power. For example, the government may and probably will state that relatives must be able to provide demonstrable proof that a loved one did not want their organs to be donated, otherwise presumed consent would apply. If they don’t do this, then there is a very real possibility that the government will have to defend thousands of legal actions from relatives that are not willing to see the bodies of their loved ones desecrated on the whim of a doctor.

I do not believe the answer lies with legislation. Instead, the poor organ donor rates are as a direct consequence of poor advertising and recruitment campaigns. For example, press and TV advertising, whilst expensive, does not have a call to action, it only imparts information. What is needed is a programme that creates debate, for example but not exclusively, educating children at school, not in a negative way, but in a positive, uplifting manner, because this would encourage children to discuss the issue with their parents and then families can determine how they feel about this emotive issue.

Once governments start to legislate on such emotional issues, there will be a backlash, the negative connotations surrounding of organ donor-ship will come to the fore, people will resist and the programme will fail miserably. I can tell you for nothing, that if the government bring in presumed consent, then I will personally opt out, because I will not be dictated to by a government that is so willing to disregard my right to choose. This is the thin edge of the wedge, it really is, what is to stop the government to determine that we must all, for example give blood? Giving blood is an excellent and commendable contribution made by individuals but it is voluntary, there is also a shortage of blood, what is to stop the government from introducing legislation requiring everyone to donate blood, for example, twice a year? Answer, nothing.

As I stated at the outset, this has nothing to do with whether or not organ donation is a good or a bad thing, it is about our right to choose. No government should introduce legislation that removes that fundamental right. This government has consistently driven through legislation that has eroded, removed or virtually destroyed our civil liberties, our freedoms and our right to privacy and they have been allowed to do so, by an incapable opposition party and complacent people. Bouyed by this, the government now threatens to demonstrate how we have all sleep walked into Big Brother Britain, by introducing legislation that will confirm, that not only does the government control everything we do, say, think and write in life, they now control our bodies after death.

As Big Brother Britain gathers pace, news is released that more than 12,000 people had Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks completed on them, which indicated that they had a criminal record, when in fact that was not the case. That is not a statistic, but 12,000 individuals that have incorrectly been branded a thief, fraudster, paedophile etc. In each case, it is for the individual to pursue the authorities to have the records amended by the CRB. It would appear that this was, in effect, a clerical error, for example when a criminal record has been incorrectly allocated to the wrong person. Now lets turn it on its head, if 12,000 people have had someone else’s misdeed attached to them, what of the people that were guilty, do they have a clean sheet?

This brings me to my point, well nearly. Assuming a database itself is flawless, unlikely, but we will assume so so for the sake of this example, the information contained within the database can only be as good as the individual entering the data. The industry jargon being “crap in, crap out”. Human error, as in the case in point, can, will and does happen. If innocent individuals can be incorrectly branded criminals today, where will we be tomorrow? As this government moves endlessly and relentlessly to collect and record every piece of information on every man, woman and child in this country, then enters it into a database, how long before we see further serious errors.

Could we be innocently be accused of consorting with criminals or terrorists because someone had incorrectly attached the wrong file? How long before someone dies because some idiot put the wrong information on their health service file? Surely, it is not beyond the intelligence level of our politicians to recognise that people are human, with the obvious exception of MP’s and they will make mistakes. They could also, potentially destroy another individual deliberately or inadvertently with a few clicks of a mouse? Another point here, is that if you ask any IT expert, he will tell you that the challenge is not building the database and entering the database, it is how to use and analyse that information.

This is precisely what is wrong with Big Brother Britain and the politicians that believe it is the only way forward. You try and block off one threat with a heavy handed, ill-considered approach and another threat comes in from a completely different direction. By focusing on every single person in this country and then recording everything they say, do, write, as well as where they go, their medical history, who they consort with and so on, you end up with so much information is is completely useless. In addition, there is so much data, that it will be virtually impossible to verify each detail, which will conceivably, perhaps inevitably, lead to a situation where we are all guilty until proven innocent. Think about it, this is the only way the state could make the thing work.

This government, senior civil servants and their advisers need to understand the basics and that is, they are better off putting their resources into targeting known criminals and terrorists and their cohorts, rather than assuming everyone must, or could be guilty of some offence or misdemeanor. This government is guilty of acting like a child in a sweetie shop, using a distraction method to allow them to fill their pockets with goodies.

The citizens of this country are quite rightly concerning themselves with the economy, jobs and so on. We are also constantly drip fed with the risk of some new terrorist threat, which often coincides with this government trying to pursue another liberty crushing piece of legislation, funny that! Not that we haven’t lived with both the threat and actions of terrorists for years! I digress. Whilst the public’s attention is directed elsewhere, this government is steadily and relentlessly introducing more and more, draconian legislation designed to permit the state to spy on the lives and activity of every single individual in this country. We are sleep walking into a police state.

In my view, it is tantamount to state terrorism, control and intrusion of the individual. Something that was supposed to have been protected with the Magna Carta. In this governments quest for ever more control of the individual, this government is systematically destroying everything we hold dear, our freedom, right to privacy and our civil liberties. This government and the members of parliament that have allowed this to happen should hang their heads in shame. As indeed should the people who choose to ignore, or perhaps indulge this government’s perverted obsession with voyeurism and spying, because they too, as surely as night follows day, will one day fall victim to this governments permitted excesses, as could their children and their children’s children.

Every voter should be writing to their MP’s and asking where they stand on this issue and if it is for state control and intrusion, then they must be voted out. We have a responsibility to ourselves, our neighbours, our friends and of course future generations. To fail them is akin to turning our backs on those that have sacrificed their lives over generations in order that we could benefit from a democracy and be free from state control. Rant over..until the next time!

Originally written for the Big Brother Britain & Civil Liberties Blog

Regular readers of this blog will know that I have a real bee in my bonnet over the way our civil liberties are being eroded by a government completely obsessed with turning our country into Big Brother Britain. I have also made public my concern over the general apathetic views of the majority of British citizens to this massive infringement on our right to privacy and to get on with our lives without state interference.

The announcement that this government wanted to spend £12bn on a ’super’ database which would collate information on every call, text message, email and the browsing habits of every individual in this country, in spite of our dire economic position, had me raging. I wrote a number of posts on this topic and then decided that it was such an important issue it really needed its own dedicated blog, so I set up Big Brother Britain.

However, this blog is not about me, if it is to have any value whatsoever, particularly in terms of educating and informing those who do not understand the implications of this governments inteference in our everyday lives, then it needs unique content and as many contributors or supporters as possible. I am delighted that we have already had a number of respected political bloggers that have agreed to support the Big Brother Britain blog and these include, Will Rhodes, Shrewd Mammal, The Secret Person, British Politics and David David from The Libertarian Alliance. This is a none partisan blog, it really doesn’t matter what your political persuasion is, Big Brother Britain affects us all.

I am also very pleased and would like to thank David Davis from The Libertarian Alliance who has kindly agreed to post articles on this topic, some of which are already on the site. He is actively encouraging people to visit regularly and comment. It is great to know that I am not having to try and do this all on my own! 

I would respectfully ask anyone else who has a shared interest on this subject to offer their support using any of the following initiatives; become one of our supporters and allow us to add your site to the Big Brother Britain blogroll, add Big Brother Britain to your blogroll, write a post similar to this one announcing the launch of the Big Brother Britain blog, include the tag ‘big brother britain’ in your on topic posts, add some of your own articles on this subject to BBB and/or offer to provide unique content as an author. You could also reference any Big Brother Britain posts on related issues on your own future postings of course. I am not trying to teach anyone to suck eggs, I am just indicating that all offers of assistance, no matter how small will be gratefully received.

Posts on the Big Brother Britain site can also be further publicised by adding articles to Digg, Technorati, Reddit and so on. All articles from Big Brother Britain will also be added to Big Brother Britain at Google Groups and Big Brother Britain at Reddit.

In addition to my own efforts, Shrewd Mammal has introduced a similar campaign, headlined and identified by the tag RESIST. His concerns and issues identify closely with the Big Brother Britain campaign site and I would urge fellow political bloggers to also consider using this tag in any posts on this subject.

Thanks for taking the time to read this post and if you get a moment please visit Big Brother Britain, we know that Hazel Blears has a real problem with people like us, so why not antagonise her further?

I ask this question because I have to confess, my understanding of what a Bill of Rights should be, seems to differ from that of the current Labour administration and I suspect, those views held by the other political parties.

I understood that the new British Bill of Rights was going to be based loosely on the classic Bills of Rights, from Magna Carta in 1215 to the English Bill of Rights of 1689, or perhaps the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of 1789 or the American Bill of Rights of 1791. Which was principally the protection of an individual’s liberty against the intrusive and interfering power of an overbearingstate. I figured that the government may seek to include some general  human rights issues. Such as those included in the “Four Freedoms” speech by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt in his State of the Union address to Congress in 1941. Freedom of speech and expression, freedom of every person to worship, freedom from want and, of course, freedom from fear.

Instead, as I understand it, the intention is to bring in something of a ‘nanny state’ Bill of Rights. That is to say, that an individual shall have the right to, for example, a job, food, clothing & recreation. The right to a home, as well as economic support through old age, sickness or accidents. To education and medical care. As a quid pro quo, the government intend, as I understand it, to include “citizens responsibilities”. I simply cannot see how any government can guarantee these particular social and economic ”rights”. In my view, it can only ever be a statement of intent by the government, perhaps a modern day ‘mission statement’ if you will, but they cannot be legally enforceable rights? 

As it is proposed, the whole thing is farcical, but not funny. This is because vast sections of the proposed new British Bill of Rights are unnecessary, in light of the fact that ’rights’, such as benefits payments and the minimum wage are already legally enforceable.

In my view, we need to go back to basics. The reason we need a new British Bill of Rights, is to protect us all from repressive, intrusive and unnecessary government sponsored legislation which seeks to treat every citizen as a potential suspect. The Big Brother Britain that has become our lot in life! The British public desperately and urgently need protection from the state itself. This is what I said a few months ago;

This Labour government and the European laws they have introduced into this country has slowly eroded our rights, diluted our ability to hold ministers to account and moved us towards a Police state. If ever there was a need to protect the public it is now. A Bill of Rights should be drawn up, it must then be put to the people of this country through a referendum and once accepted by the public, introduced immediately. Moreover, once introduced, it must take precedence over any other legislation intended to be brought into law, European or otherwise. Once these laws have been introduced, a Law Lord should be placed ‘in charge’ who’s duty should be to ensure that the Bill of Rights is upheld, that is to say, no new laws are introduced by successive governments or European ministers which would dilute the rights entrenched in our Bill of Rights, without a further referendum.

 News that Gordon Brown and Jack Straw have been told by cabinet colleagues that their proposal, as it stands, is unworkable, comes as no surprise to me. This government has completely missed the point and so have many members of parliament who support a statement as opposed to an enforceable bill of rights. The people of this country have had to endure an increasing level of state interference in their everyday lives, from 4.2m CCTV cameras, to chips in rubbish bins. With proposals that include a massive Big Brother Britain database which would store information on calls, text messages, locations, emails and internet browsing habits. Airport scanners which see though clothes, identity cards which include our most private and intimate details. Our children from the age of 5, will be monitored by the state to include their most private details such as details on their mental health, sexual health or any substance abuse treatment. The list is endless, as is the number of ‘agencies’ that will have access to this information, some 700 as last count!.

I don’t know whether Gordon Brown and Jack Straw are being deliberately obtuse, or whether power has gone to their heads, but what is clear, is that the biggest danger to the citizens of this country is him, his government and their policy of systematically repressing the people of this country, to the extent that Privacy International were moved to say of us ”The worst ranking EU country is the United Kingdom, which again fell into the “black” category along with Russia and Singapore.” And that our “identity scheme is still planned to be the most invasive in the world, highly centralised and biometrics-driven“.

New Labour need to stop, listen to what WE want and then provide a British Bill of Rights that entrenches those values and freedoms. A Bill of Rights does not need to include mission statements, nor any statements of intent. Moreover, there is no need for it to attempt to provide unenforceable, wish-washy promises on economic or social issues, these are covered elsewhere. Instead, the British Bill of Rights needs to be a solid, unbreakable commitment by the government of the day to treat each if its citizens as individuals. It must reinforce the notion of ’innocent until proven guilty’ and not seek to do anything that would remove an innocent individuals right to privacy, self-respect and liberty.

Clearly this is sensitive issues and a personal perspective, so I do not expect everyone to agree with me. Perhaps some will believe that it should include social and economic commitments, my fear however, is as soon as you make something so all encompassing, it becomes a fully-fledged legal document rather that a unambiguous, bulleted statement of rights. Legal documents are a lawyers dream and a litigants worst nightmare, because the fuller the statements, the more opportunity to interpret, wriggle and overturn. We need, clear unambiguous statements!

We must not allow this opportunity to pass or turn into a typical New Labour fudge, all spin and no substance.

Old Holborn has invited readers of Power to the People to join him and thus far, another 102 “ramblers” for a brisk stroll from Trafalgar Square to Parliament Square at midday on the 5th November. Alas, given I am in Frankfurt at the moment, as Big Brother Britain will be able to confirm, I can only be there in spirit, however, I am more than happy to both extend his invitation and recommend supporting this excellent 30 minute exercise! You can find more information here: Old Holborn is going for a walk.

As is befitting for the day, 5th November, Old Holborn will be easy to spot at Trafalgar Square. Fellow ‘ramblers’ are also invited, if they wish, to dress in similar fashion and to bring a friend along if they wish.  Old Holborn believes in free speech and to quote him directly, “The difference between a Welfare State and a Totalitarian State is a matter of time”.

I wish him every success and if he decides that he needs more exercise again next year, I will be happy to joing him. In the meantime I can only offer my support and publicise this London ramble. Image is from the website of Philip Coppens, where you can purchase V for Vendetta outfits.