Finally, one of the major political parties has come out and made a clear and unequivocal statement in favour of returning power to the people. The LibDems have promised to repeal the series of authoritarian measures introduced by New Labour, which has lead, to put it in their words, to the “slow death” of our civil liberties. To be fair, the LibDems have taken a long time to recognise that this is a key are of concern for citizens of this country, but lets face it, better late that never. What a pity that the Conservative party have been so weak when it comes to civil liberties and government intrusion, but then again, they demonstrated their true colours when they sided with Jack Straw, when he used the Ministerial veto to hide the the minutes of cabinet meetings leading up to the Iraq War from the public.

The LibDems are calling on the government to reverse the controversial policing and criminal justice legislation introduced in recent years. Doubtless, this request will be ignored, given our current government have demonstrated time and again, that they have little or no time for anyone who would dare to criticise their policies. Further, this government have consistently paid lip service to the hard won freedoms that we have enjoyed prior to their term in office, dismissing protests with a wave of their hand. New Labour’s philosophy it is the state that is master, not the people, supporting this argument by spending £billions on new methods to record information of the general public.

The LibDems have stated that they would reduce detention without charge from 28 days to 14, remove the ministerial veto altogether, allow DNA to be retained only in cases where someone has been charged and convicted, scrap ID cards and order a full scale review of the use use of CCTV cameras, which now numbers over 4m. To put that into perspective, in 2004 a European Commission report found that there were some 40,000 cameras monitoring public areas in 500 British towns and cities, compared to fewer than 100 cameras in 15 German cities. Little wonder that nearly every report you read states that we are the most spied on country in the world.

However, the LibDems need to go much further. They must seek to cancel the Big Brother Britain databases that this government has either introduced or announced. At the very least, this should include the database proposed in the new Data Communications Bill intended to record every call, text message and email we send or receive, in addition to spying on our internet browsing habits. As well as the latest government wheeze, the travellers database, that seeks to record every trip we take, where we go, how we pay and where we sit. There should be a review of the ContactPoint database already introduced in terms of whether the benefits will outweigh the cost and risks and the NHS database, which is hopelessly inefficient and is the subject of much criticism from the very practitioners who are supposed to benefit from it.

I have never voted LibDem in my life, I have always viewed them as the party of high taxation, the Green Party in disguise if you like and quite frankly, lacking in any real substance. However, I have been heartily impressed with Vince Cable’s take on the economy, not that I have agreed with everything he has said, but he speaks with authority and knowledge, unlike some other that you would expect to be well briefed. Compare that with the wishy-washy approach from the Conservative party and the reckless abandonment demonstrated by the current Labour government. I fail to see much difference between the policies of the Conservatives and those of New Labour, it just seems to be more of the same, couched in a ’softer’ tone or called by a different name and that is NOT what I want. Labour have promised us tax increases, the Conservative party have promised us tax increases, so what the hell, they are now all on a level playing field. The Labour party have demonstrated that they could not give a toss about our right to privacy, liberty and freedom to go about our business without state interference, the conservative party have said a few weasley words in condemnation, but nothing more. so I think we know where they stand, especially after their appalling and ill-conceived support for Jack Straw and his ministerial veto.

In fact, there is so little to choose between any of the main parties, that I suspect who we decide to vote for, may well be based on something that they do differ on, provided it is important to the voter. I believe, that whilst all parties broadly agree on key electoral issues, such as the NHS, education, crime, immigration, the environment and taxes, it will be the smaller things that become the deciding factor.

For that reason, unless we start to see substantial policy differences, not variations on the same theme, I do not believe that ANY party, especially the Conservatives, can count on winning the next election. In my view, the next election will go to the wire, people will decide late in the day and Cameron & co, unless they can highlight real policy differences and intiatives between the Conservatives and Labour, will be left with egg on their face. This could lead to the LiDems and other independent parties being in a position whereby they can punch well above their weight. Having seen what happens when a government gets such a massive majority, I never want to see that happen again, because the longer the term in office with a large majority, the more authoritarian they become. Given none of the parties are talking about wholesale reform, it can be safely argued that there is no need for massive majorities anyway.

Hard-liner, David Blunkett, is expected to criticise the government’s continued obsession with creating a surveillance society intent on infringing the liberty and rights of British citizens in an address at the 21st annual law lecture in Essex University’s Colchester campus. Although Blunkett is expected, wrongly in my opinion, to claim that the government has got the balance between liberty and security he will voice concern over other highly contentious issues.

He will come out against the Government’s controversial plan to set up a database holding details of telephone calls and emails and its proposal to allow public bodies to share personal data with each other. He will also suggest a complete U-Turn on compulsory identity cards, although he is expected to insist that they should be mandatory for all foreign nationals. David Blunkett is also expected to urge the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, to dilute the provisions of the Coroners and Justice Bill on data sharing between public bodies. He will warn: “It is not simply whether the intentions are benign, undoubtedly they are, but whether they are likely to be misused and above all what value their use may have.” Similarly, he is expected to criticise the misuse of the 2000 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which has been used for example, by local councils to tackle dog fouling and the monitoring of rubbish (no, not MP’s, refuse!)

When someone that so vehemently supported the introduction of ID cards and tough anti-terror laws raises concerns about the risk to privacy and liberty, the government must sit up and take notice. Although Blunkett’s comments are measured, it is reasonable to surmise that he is genuinely concerned and in order not to embarrass the government, he has couched his comments to be received positively. In just over a week, we have had the former head of MI5 criticising this government’s intrusion into our lives and now a former, hard-line Home Secretary. When will the government realise that they have gone way to far and, when will opposition parties appreciate that they would be pushing at an open door if they agreed to review and if necessary, repeal oppressive and draconian legislation that infringes the rights of the people of this country?

I will let David Blunkett have the last few words. “The strength of our democracy is that we are able to challenge when the well-meaning, but sometimes misguided, take their own knowledge of the threats we face to be justification for protecting our mutual interest at the expense of our individual freedom. If we tolerate the intolerable, the intolerable gradually becomes the norm.”

According to a survey completed by the Hansard Society, MP’s are not taking advantage of the power of the internet and, those that do, typically use it as a method of transmitting information, not receiving it. The only thing that should surprise anyone here is the fact that this is being heralded as a new discovery. The truth is, members of parliament (from all parties) have been talking at the British public for decades, although it is more prevalent now than it was, for example, 15 years ago.

With one or two notable exceptions, the only time members of parliament engage with the public is when they want something, which is typically once every 5 years, to convince us to vote for them. Once they get their seat in parliament, the majority of them couldn’t give a toss about their constituents, all of a sudden that are taken in by the deference they are shown and the generosity of the expense accounts.

The internet is a great tool for engaging with the general public and blogs represent an excellent forum for debate, yet only a handful of MP’s have their own blogs or contribute to other ‘political’ commentary/opinion blogs. Why, do you suppose that is? I believe it is a combination of the following; they can’t be bothered, they have nothing constructive to say, they are frightened of engaging with real people that have not been briefed on what questions they can, or cannot ask, their own positions are indefensible or, they are way to busy completing their expense claims.

Some government ministers are contemptuous of so called ‘political bloggers’, take Hazel Blears for example, she waded into them last year claiming they were fuelling a “culture of cynicism about public life“.  It couldn’t be that people were daring to disagree with the government could it? In fact, her attack only demonstrated her own ignorance and ineptitude, because what she chose to forget was that behind these blogs are real people, voters, who feel that blogging is a method by which they can voice their opinion and engage with other who may or may not agree with them. One thing is certain, frustrated voters have no other way of venting, with a government intent on doing as much as they can to restric freedom of speech, marches or protests!

The truth is, members of parliament ignore the power of the internet and the influence of political bloggers at their peril. The internet is an excellent medium to find like minded individuals and although it may be still be some way off, I would not be surprised if a new political party in not founded via the internet and one that speaks for the people, rather than at them.  

Only a fool, or in this case, a party and government of fools would choose to ignore a growing momentum of disaffected voters in the vain hope that they will go away. MP’s should engage with the public, not once every 5 years, but each and every day….or risk losing their seat. If they don’t do that, then I predict that today’s political bloggers will become tomorrow’s independent MP’s, only then will the people of this country really be able to call the government to account, because it would be our equivalent of non-executive directors! So the message to ALL Members of Parliament is stop transmitting and start receiving, before it is too late!

At a time when we should all be considering tightening our belts, the government of Big Brother Britain has decided to set up yet another database to spy and record details of British citizens travel arrangements. Once again, this has is being justified on the pretext of national security. Quite apart from the fact that this government has proven itself incapable of introducing working databases on budget, the fact remains that it is entirely unnecessary. This database has nothing to do with security and everything to do with government control over its citizens. There is simply no way that this government can justify spying on 60m people in order that they can track, at most, a few thousand potential terrorists.

This is in addition to the governments intention to record every email, text message and telephone call, plus our Internet browsing habits. It is high time the British public started asking why on earth this government needs so much information on its citizens. It is estimated that the Big Brother Britain database for spying on calls and Internet traffic will cost £12bn, it is therefore, reasonable to assume that this latest database will cost at least 50% of the costs, therefore another £6bn, minimum. These two databases are equivalent to the cost of 300 new hospitals!

Once again, thus far, the opposition parties have been noticeable by their absence, they should be refusing to support this oppressive, civil liberty busting voyeurism of this Labour government. They should be promising to scrap such databases or repealing legislation that permits the collection of this data. There has been a complete lack of any justification by this government, presumably to ensure that there is as little publicity as possible whilst they try and sneak this programme through the back door.

Wake up Cameron, wake up Clegg and wake up people, this is becoming completely unacceptable, in terms of our liberty, right to privacy and of course, the excessive cost at a time when we can least afford it. We are already spied on by some 4m cameras, information on our children, their welfare, schooling, carers, health and so on is already being stored in a government database. This government is introducing a cradle to grave spying programme on its own citizens, it is time to say enough is enough. It has already been noted that we are one of the most spied on nations anywhere in the world, alongside places such as North Korea. Surely that must ring alarm bells for even the most complacent British citizen?

This latest database will store names, addresses, telephone numbers, seat reservations, travel itineraries and credit card details of travellers. The notion that if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear is total nonesense. Why? Because is presupposes that the people that have access to this information will use it for legitimate purposes. How can we be certain when this government has already allowed thousands of agencies, public and private access to our personal information that is already stored? Enough is enough, stand up and be counted people, and Mr Cameron, get off your backside and say something, either you support this destruction of our civil liberties, or you must fight against it, show some backbone, prove to the people of this country that you are not a lighweight. Say no to Big Brother Britain - RESIST!

Whilst reading an article on New Labours plan for broadband over on the British Politics blog I was taken by acomment included in the post, not directly related to the subject, but it struck a chord with me. British Politics described New labour as the “say something, do nothing” party. At a time when Gordon Brown likes to continually accuse the conservative party of being the “do nothing party”, it crossed my mind about people in glass houses etc.

Now I don’t deny, as was stated by British Politics, that when it comes to spending our money, attacking our civil liberties or hiding their expenses from prying eyes, the Labour party is active, perhaps even enthusiastic. But, what about all of the other promises and commitments they have made over the years? This “say something, do nothing” party has, over the last 11 long years, consistently made promises and failed to deliver. They have enjoyed the publicity of one ‘policy initiative’ afetr the other, but conveniently forgotten to do anything many of them, or conveniently buried them when they couldn’t make it work.

New Labour ministers are for ever opening their mouths, before they have engaged their brains. The broadband promise is yet another example where Gordon Brown is trying to spin the subject matter for positive headlines, yet, all he has in the content of an interim report, there is little or no substance to it and no real financial figures. In fact, it is a perfect example of “say something, do nothing“.

After all, how can the government promise something that the commercial sector must deliver, how can the government determine a timescale with no commercial agreements, in fact, just what will the government be doing to deliver on this commitment, they won’t legislate for it? Well the the answer is simple…nothing. In other words, they are the ’say something, do nothing’ party.

This got me thinking, perhaps Gordon Brown should try a dose of his own medicine, after all, he started this whole thing didn’t he? I wonder how many other examples we could put together where Gordon Brown, Tony Blair or New Labour have said something and done nothing. One that immediately springs to mind, is the promise of a further 200,000 affordable homes by 2016. At this time, there are virtually no homes being built, much less, affordable homes.

But again, Gordon Brown basked in the glory of his own spin, promised 200,000 houses, even though his party were making a promise that only the private sector could deliver on. Remember, he did not promise social housing, just affordable housing. A perfect example of ’say something, do nothing’. I am certain that if we put our collective minds together, we could list dozens of other examples, please feel free! Perhaps we should also consider adding another tag to New Labour posts, ’say something do nothing’, it might even encourage David Cameron and the Conservatives to start highlighting just how many broken promises there have been under this government? Please feel free to post your responses below.

A rhetorical question I know, but any enlightened citizen of the United Kingdom must have found themselves asking this question in the past few months. Whilst I accept that this could have been in relation to the economy, terrorism, the economy or civil liberties, I want to refer to the latter only in this post.

Liberty, the group tasked with fighting for our civil liberties and promoting human rights, recently conducted a ComRes poll in relation to this very issue and as a consequence of changes or proposed changes to the Human Rights Act. The results are not surprising, but perhaps the percentages are.

For example, 95% of those polled said that they believed respect for privacy, family life and the home and the right to a fair trial was either vital or important. Are there any member of parliament reading this poll, because I can see very few actually seeking to protect these areas that have been consistently attacked and eroded by this government? All the Conservative party does is attack Labour policies. However, they have yet to put on record that they would, if successful at the next election, repeal any legislation introduced by the current government that attacks the civil liberties and rights of the ordinary man and woman in the street. This failure to say anything implies that whilst they are now willing to attack the Labour party on every front, they are secretly in support of new, draconian legislation, designed to control the people of this country.

Elsewhere in the poll, 90% of those asked, responded that they believed freedom of speech, protest and association was either vital or important. Once again, this government has introduced legislation or proposals aimed at curtailing this right, or freedom, depending on your perspective. Perhaps the most frightening statistic, is that only 13% of those polled ever remember seeing or reading information from the government about this legislation. We could debate for months to come over whether this is the responsibility of a government intent on hiding draconian legislation within the small print of obscure or ill-described Acts of Parliament, or a failure of the media to highlight these issues. Either way, what is clear, is that that vast majority of the people of this country are not aware of major changes to our civil liberties and human rights on an almost daily basis. What is self-evident however, is that few will be aware until such time as they fall foul with the law.

This poll suggests that the people of this country do not want to see our rights and liberties eroded through draconian legislation. It makes clear that the primary reason there has been no public backlash is the fact that 87% of the population are not even aware of this government’s attack on everything we have held dear for hundreds of years. Legislation that was introduced with the sole aim of protecting us from repressive governments. It also suggests that members of parliament from all sides are either out of touch with the opinions of their constituents or they couldn’t care less, so long as John Lewis is open.

Furthermore, it implies that the opposition parties are either complicit or supportive of new legislation, given for the most part, they are only willing to criticise, rather than make clear statements that they would repeal the acts if they came to power. By contrast, take David Cameron’s statement on Heathrow, he has said if the Conservatives get into government, they will scrap plans for a third runway. Has anyone heard him say anything quite so direct when it comes to our liberty of freedom?

There are Groups and individuals in this country that are attempting to highlight this attack on our freedom, civil liberties and human rights, but it is an uphill struggle. There needs to be more column inches devoted to this topic, more bloggers need to get on board, journalists, with the notable exception of those fromThe Guardian ,need to educate the public about the affeacts of the new legislation and proospective MP’s should consider standing on a civil liberties platform, rather than anti-sleaze. I would also like to see, at the next general election, an influx of Libertarians vying for office, because if nothing else, they would ensure that this topic would be debated in public, at a time when the lectorate is actually listening.

I have no issue with government or other agencies seeking to discourage children and teenagers from smoking, after all, we all know that it is a lot easier to start than it is to stop. Therefore, I would actively support any education programme that is designed to achieve this objective, but banning the display of cigarettes, does anyone really think that this will have any affect whatsoever? Well clearly yes, this out of touch, politically correct Labour government.

This is political tokenism at its best, removing cigarettes from display will not reduce the number of young people from smoking, in fact it may provide a perception of something illicit, which I feel sure, will appeal to some youngsters. The claim is that there are up to 200,000 11-15 years olds smoking. Okay, so given it is illegal to sell cigarettes to children of this age, where does the government think they get them from. Maybe it is via vending machines or an older mate, or perhaps a ‘friendly’ local store. Either way, it is claimed that some 200,000 youngsters have found some method of feeding their habit. So, what really encourages them to smoke, is it peer pressure, something to do, the fact that it is illegal or because it makes them feel grown up? Maybe is is a combination of all these factors, but it can hardly be said it is because they have seen them displayed.

The problem with political tokenism is the knock-on effect or consequences of the action. For example, did the banning of cigarette sponsors for Formula 1 lead to a reduction in smoking? I don’t think so. But now, at a time when the likes of Honda are looking to put as many as 800 people out of work because they cannot afford to continue their race team, cigarette sponsors could have been a lifeline.

Take a look at the pub trade. Some 5 pubs are closing every week in this country; many landlords have put this down to, amongst other things, the ban on smoking. Yes, I accept that it is also as a consequence of the alcohol duties and competition in the supermarkets, but many landlord place the lion share of blame at the smoking ban. So, at a time when people need jobs and accommodation, 5 pub businesses are closing every single week. And, of course, it is not just pubs that are being affected, even beermat manufacturers are finding it tough. A few weeks ago there were 4 UK based manufacturers, now one has transferred manufacturing to Germany and another has closed its doors for good, halving the capacity overnight and placing people out of work.

What is not evident is whether this government simply couldn’t give a toss about collateral damage, or if they just didn’t bother to look any further than political tokenism and a positive set of headlines. Government should act responsibly, which means that if they intend to introduce new legislation, they should look at the potential consequences of their action, not just the headlines. A failure to do so, is a gross dereliction of their duty and of course, there have been many examples of this over the past 11 years. I am personally sick to the back teeth of this politically correct government, their sledgehammer to crack a nut approach to every problem and their insistence that stick is better than carrot. The bottom line is we are all being treated like children by New Labour, and I for one, have had enough.

How ironic that British subjects have had to turn to the European Courts to protect their liberty and privacy, rather than being able to rely on our own laws. If this does not demonstrate just how far this control obsessed government has gone to destroy the rights and civil liberties of the people of this country, then nothing will.

The case was brought by two men who had their DNA profile and fingerprints taken when they were charged with an offence. One had his charges dropped and the other was acquitted, yet in spite of this, the South Yorkshire Police, supported by the government, refused to destroy the DNA profile and fingerprints. Under existing laws, DNA profiles of everyone arrested for a recordable offence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are kept on the database, regardless of whether they are charged or convicted. This is not the case in Scotland where records are destroyed. 

Now, in what turned out to be a unanimous decision of 17 judges sitting in Strasbourg, the Grand Chamber Judgment ruled that the action of the police was violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights which is the ‘right to respect for private and family life‘. In fact, the Court went further, stating that the retention of this information could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society and they had been struck by the indiscriminate nature of the power of detention in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This amounts to a direct rebuke of the British government. Needless to say Jacqui Smith who has spent a great deal of public money defending the governments position, is “disappointed”, with the outcome. Just who the hell does she think she is, I thought she said that no-one was above the law.?

I do not doubt that DNA profiling is a useful tool in the fight against crime, however, there are other civil liberty concerns that should have been considered. This government has ignored any civil liberty and right to privacy issues by introducing legislation that allows DNA profiles to be retained irrespective of whether the people involved have been convicted of an offence. This is an affront to the people of this country and it has taken the European Court to uphold our rights by applying an equal measure of commonsense and existing human rights laws to come to a judgement.

What a pity this government could not have done the same. In part, we are at fault, because so many people fall, hook line and sinker, everytime the government come out with a line as to why they need to bring in new, draconian laws, believing it will never affect majority of us. Well that is simply not true. Once you discard our right to liberty, privacy and freedom, you deny us virtually everything, given it is but a short step to a police state. Take the Damian Green affair, the opposition parties never thought that the laws which they allowed this government to pass would come back and bite them in the backside, they thought it just affected the plebs! The police and security services in this country have unprecedented powers for a democratic country.

This government, as arrogant as ever, has insisted that the existing laws will remain in place whilst they consider the judgement. What? They have just been rebuked by 17 judges, from across Europe and they still insist that they are right. Does the arrogance of Jacqui Smith and the New Labour government know no bounds? A European Court has ruled that this government has not acted reasonably having failed to get the balance between the public interest and that of the private individual. In fact they noted in their judgement that England, Wales and Northern Ireland appear to be the only countries in the European Union that allow the indefinite retention of DNA profiles. Further, that in effect, this government has not applied any commonsense, nor have they considered the European Charter prior to drafting the legislation. Surely a competent government would not have drafted laws in this country without considering how they would impact on European Human Rights legislation? Unless of course, they couldn’t give a toss, believing that we are all so stupid that we will accept whatever is thrown at us, only realising that we have lost when it is too late to do anything about it.

I would like to see one of the major parties take up civil liberty issues and try and redress the balance between state and individual, because as far as I can see, we are sleep-walking into a police state, where civil liberties, freedom and a right to privacy is disregarded by a government with a phobia for control, a penchant for bullying and delusional self-gratification. No wonder they spend so much time in from of mirrors!

Tomorrow at Prime Ministers Question time, the opposition parties shall seek to raise the issue of the arrest of Damian Green. In particular, they will want to know how much advance notice, if any, government ministers or senior civil servants had and why the police were allowed to search Green’s offices? In doing so, they are expected to cite the fact that leaks are necessary if government is to be held to account, provided the information is not protected by the Official Secrets Act. Further, that members of parliament are entitled to have legal privilege between them and their constituents. All very noble, but it completely misses the point, the Damian Green affair was the result, not the cause.

Instead of looking at self-interest, our elected members of parliament, in government and opposition, must look at the laws they have been passed that have allowed this type of attack on our democratic process. The truth is, the opposition parties have been lead like lambs to the slaughter by this government, who have said, if you don’t support our draconian anti-terror legislation, then we shall publicise the fact that you are soft on crime or security. Like little lambs, instead of holding the government to account, the opposition parties went to the slaughter. In other words, they didn’t do their jobs, it is all very well bleating about holding the government to account now, but what have they been doing for the past 11 years?

What is needed is a complete review of the anti-terror laws that have been introduced under this government. Opposition parties must seek clarity on how these laws are being implemented and used against the original intent when the legislation was ’sold’ to parliament. Because I am certain, that no MP expected anti-terror laws to be used to sequestrate the assets of an otherwise friendly country (Iceland), but that is precisely what happened. The police and security services have demanded and received new laws that allow them powers akin to those of a police state. To date, unlike many police states, they do not torture those arrested, but with 30,000 tasers being order, perhaps that is just a matter of time.

Eleven years ago, the police would not have had the powers that were used to arrest Damian Green. Nor would they have been able to gather telephone intercept evidence without a judges warrant. That is no longer the case.

Damian Green should be grateful that the police did not believe that he was receiving information contained under the Official Secrets Act, because then, theoretically, he could have been detained without charge for up to a month, not 9 hours. That is the problem, the police and security services have been given massive powers over the people of this country, not targeted powers for wrongdoers, but blanket powers that can be used against anyone including MP’s. Whatever this government says, the police are a tool of state, after all, the most senior policeman in the land is not elected, he is appointed by none other than the Home Secretary.
The people of this country have seen a massive erosion of their rights, freedom and liberties over the past 11 years and this event has highlighted this. Even the ‘New Labour’ supporting newspaper The Sun, has finally determined that the state has too much power over the populous.

People that claim we are moving towards a police state are branded as nutters, yet Privacy International were moved to say of the UK ”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“.

This is what I said a month ago on the issue of government control:

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 earnestly hope that the opposition parties will take the wider issues into account. In other words, how we got where we are today, how and why the state and their agents have so much power, that people can be detained for a month without charge, have their email, phone calls, text messages and internet browsing habits, routinely captured and stored, their DNA taken and stored, even where no charge has been laid etc, etc. This has all been done in the name of fighting crime or terrorism, but what a price we have had to pay. Yet the terrorist threat has not been lessened and crime is not falling. All that has transpired is the police need less evidence to make a charge and have gained more charges to target the majority with. It is an appalling state of affairs in what has become Big Brother Britain. We need to reverse this situation now and there is no better opportunity than the Damian Green affair to widen the debate. Opposition parties must insist on a public debate on the issue of all the new legislation that has been introduced at the expense of our civil liberties, right to privacy and individual freedom.

How ironic that it has taken the arrest of Damian Green, the Shadow Immigration Minister to provoke David Cameron into describing the police as “Stalinesque“. Because his party has sat on its hands whilst this Labour government has consistently removed the rights and civil liberties of every single person in this country. What is Cameron’s problem, does he think he is a cut above the rest of us, that the draconian, Big Brother Britain laws introduced to control the citizens of this country shouldn’t be used against a member of parliament? Pathetic little man, it was Cameron’s job to keep this control obsessed government in check, he failed, now one of his minister pays the price. Bloody good job if this is what it has taken to wake Cameron and his party from their self-induced slumber.

For what it is worth, I completely agree, the police action was outrageous, but what did Cameron expect? On his watch, New Labour has introduced a raft of measures and legislation designed specifically to allow the state to control, spy and monitor every one of its citizens. This includes, but is not limited to tracking our vehicle movements through ANPR or CCTV cameras; indulging in recording, monitoring and commenting on our most personal details on a health service database; or having voyeuristic access to very email, text message and call we make. Then to compund this abuse of power by making the information available to up to 800 separate agencies, including private companies. Just yesterday, Jacqui Smith ordered 10,000 Tasers to be used against the people of this country, with the stated intention of arming 30,000 front line officers and barely a murmur from Cameron’s compliant party of opposition.

The police in this country have been given unprecedented powers, akin to that of a repressive police state, not the police “service” of a first world country and yet they are asking for even more. This government has pandered to their every whim, like a lovesick teenager, not the objective supervising team they are supposed to be. It was as if government ministers were in awe and the police no longer want to detect or investigate crime, preferring to monitor everyone and wait for them to make a wrong move.

Take a look at what has happened over the past 35 years in the police service. Foot patrols became mobile patrols, mobile patrols became poorly trained ‘plastic’ policemen. The ‘plastics’ were given uniforms that have been deliberately modeled to make it difficult to determine whether it is a PCSO or a proper copper. The traditional baton was enhanced with pepper spray, which is now going to be supplemented with the life threatening Taser guns. No wonder they need to go around in cars! Could Cameron’s Conservative party not see a pattern emerging here? If he is smart enough to be proposed as the next prime minister, why was he no so bright as to see what was coming, or perhaps he thought it didn’t apply to his sort!

We are told by government ministers that crime has been falling, especially violent crime, so why do the police have a need for such violent weapons to combat a smaller threat. News that every front line officer is to be provided with a Taser is unprecedented, what has happened here, have the police officers lost their bottle? There was a time when being a police officer meant you had to have courage, now police officers routinely hide behind their computer screens, desks and ridiculous health & safety rules that inhibit policing and risk to a level akin to crossing a busy road.

God forbid that police officers should have to leave their comfortable cars or offices to a investigate crime or risk getting hurt in the line of duty. What type of police officer feels the need to have an array of weapons which include a baton, pepper spray and a deadly taser gun before he or she will go outside and meet what is a relatively law abiding public? Under this government, the police have been allowed to determine which crimes they investigate, so for example, victims of burglaries and vandelism must accept a crime number, with no investigation. With very few exceptions, everyone that I know that has had to report a crime or interface with the police have come away appalled at their lack of commitment or unwillingness to investigating crime. The fact that anyone going to a police station to report a crime is expected to deal with a civilian is indicative of where the police have gone wrong. Bottom line Cameron, is the police service needs to be hauled in, they have quite simply go too big for their boots.

Gordon Brown claimed that his would be an open government. Whilst his ministers may not like the leaking of certain documents, if it is in the public interest, they should not be using the police as a weapon of state to punish those concerned. After all, if there was no national security risk, just a possibility of a minister being embarrassed or caught out in a lie, why the need for anti-terrorist officers. The claim that no minister knew the police were going to arrest Damien Green really pushes at the fringes of credibility.

But I feel the need to point David Cameron in the right direction. The problem is when government provides such a wide definition of a law. For example, Green was arrested on arrested on “suspicion of conspiring to commit misconduct in a public office and aiding and abetting, counselling or procuring misconduct in a public office“. Now that encompasses just about everything. By the same token, this government has used similar, broad definitions to destroy many of the civil liberties and rights to privacy of the individual in this country under the guise of anti-terror laws. Cameron’s party wanting to appear tough on crime and terror legislation have been compliant to the extent that they could be accused of being complicit in the whole sorry state of affairs.

Our police service now has unprecedented powers, passed to them by a compliant government, that was intent on achieving state control. Damien Green has now become a victim of Big Brother Britain, his boss doesn’t like it and neither do we! Perhaps Cameron and co, will now realise how the public feel about the removal of our rights by opposing new legislation and offering to repeal similar, uneccessary acts. I am personally delighted that one of Cameron’s MP’s has had the opportunity to feel first hand the affects of a repressive state.