At a time when the police are targeting any misdemeanor made by a member of the public, it transpires that some of their number are themselves convicted criminals, yet they are still entrusted with the power to deal with the public. This is completely unacceptable, although to be honest, with Jacqui Smith’s track record, I am not completely surprised.

Under Jacqui Smith’s tenure each time the police want more powers to persecute the public they get them, irrespective of what this means to the civil liberties of the individual (Tasers, Prostitution, DNA etc). I am not anti-police, far from it, but if I am going to be investigated by a police officer, he had better have a record as clean as my own. That said, I am firmly against the police gaining ever more powers to spy on every citizen in the country, irrespective of whether there are grounds for such intrusion. It is completely unacceptable and implies that we are all suspects.

Just who are the police serving? Public confidence in the police service will not come by placing ‘plastic’ policemen (PCSO’s) in the front line, whilst experienced officers are searching databases looking for criminal intent or hiding in their comfortable and often, very expensive motor cars. In fact, where are the 160,000 police officers?

According to the LibDems, information gathered using the Freedom of Information Act, indicates that more than half of the 1,063 convictions admitted to by police forces that responded to the FOI request related to speeding or other motoring offences. However, what is particularly shocking, is the fact that some 77 officers have convictions for violence and 96 for dishonesty. How is the public supposed to retain faith in the police force of this country if they retain officers that have been convicted of criminal acts such as these? It is worth noting that the quoted figures are likely to be lower that the actual numbers reported given only 41 of the 51 police forces responded.

According to the LibDems, offences included a serious assault in Durham and four incidents of drug possession in Surrey. What is perhaps more shameful, is rather that condemning, the Police Federation sought to defend these officers. Granted, it is a small number when compared with the 160,000 police officers in the service, but, what is undeniable, is the fact that these dodgy coppers have besmirched the service they are supposed to represent and in doing so, cast a shadow over the police officers that do abide by the law.

In my view, this is shameful, Jacqui Smith should try and do something useful during her term in office, (which, mercifully, is likely to be quite short) and that would be to ensure that these officers convicted of a criminal offence are immediately thrown out of the police service.

Proof if any were needed that Jack Straw has completely lost the plot is demonstrated by comments he has made in The Guardian. The classic one is as follows;

“I’m the first to accept that Labour since 1997 has not achieved a state of grace in terms of the crucial balance between security and liberty. But on any objective basis, this government has done more to reinforce and strengthen liberty than any since the war.”

Well apart from the fact that this statement is a classic case of ‘doublespeak‘ his claim that his government has reinforced and strengthened liberty is utter rubbish. New Labour have effectively suspended Habeas Corpus; have supported the introduction of 4.2m CCTV cameras, one for every 12 people in this country; have taken and then retained DNA on people that have never been charged or have been acquitted; have introduced and now seek to strengthen the rules related to a Communications Database which will record every telephone call, text message and email we send, as well as our internet browsing habits; have announced their intention to set up a ‘Travel Database’ which will record when we go on holiday, with whom, for how long, how much it cost, how we paid etc; have introduced ContactPoint a database that will record every aspect of our children’s lives from the moment they start school and then increased the number of people that will have access to this information; have announced their intention to force ID cards upon us, inspite of massive public resistance; have announced the intention to introduce biometrics onto our passports, with a chip that could be used to track our every move; are tracking our vehicle movements with the use of ANPR cameras; and if that were not enough, they are spending £12bn of our money on an NHS database that no-one wants!

I could also go on about the fact that Mr Straw decided that the British public were not entitled to know the justifications and deliberations that took place in Cabinet in the weeks leading up to the Iraq War. Instead, he used his Ministerial Veto to hide the minutes from us, even though, it was these decisions that ultimately lead to the decision to go to war and, arguably, created a situation where we made every British citizen a terrorist target.

“Talk of Britain sliding into a police state is daft scaremongering….”

The police under Labour have been given unprecedented powers. They can prevent marches or protests, take DNA even when no charges have been laid, arrest and detain without charge for up to 28 days, spy on any member of the public they so choose, (using the tools that the government argued were for protection against terrorism and major crime) and now they can quell protest by firing deadly tasers at ordinary citizens, with the issue of a Taser for every front line policeman. Even the Houses of Parliament are not sacrosanct and there have also been cases of the police listening in to private and privileged conversations between a defendant and their lawyer. I could go on, but I would be here for hours.

“….but even were it true there is a mechanism to prevent it - democratic elections. People have the power to vote out administrations which they believe are heavy-handed.”

This is quite true, New Labour have not found a method by which they could remove our democratic right to vote, although they do have the powers to know what we are saying or writing because of their unprecedented power to spy on us. However, whilst we have this democratic right, we can only exercise it once every 5 years at a time that suits the government, not the people. If Jack Straw believes that his government have acted in the best interest of the public, then he should pop along to Gordon Brown’s office and suggest two things, 1. that new legislation is introduced that allows the people of this country to insist on an immediate election where they have lost confidence in the government and 2. that Gordon Brown announce a June election, so that we can all decide on their track record now. I think it is highly unlikely that ‘Justice‘ Secretary, Jack Straw will allow us any justice.

“I hope that in the final reckoning even some of our harshest critics will concede that this Labour government has done more than any before it to extend liberties and to constrain government.”

As I have said, Jack Straw has now joined Gordon Brown in being so removed from reality and the mood of the public, that he may as well be based on Mars. No wonder this country is in so much trouble.

The Arrogance of Power

Amidst massive public opposition, this government decided to send out troops to war in Iraq, now they have used a clause in the Freedom of Information Act to block the release of details of meetings in which the war’s legality was discussed. This decision was made by Justice Secretary, Jack Straw and supported by his cabinet colleagues. Straw claims that releasing the minutes would do “seriously damage” to Cabinet government and this outweighed any public interest considerations. Just who the hell does he think he is? This government sent our troops to war, far too many soldiers have lost their lives as a consequence of that decision and the war has cost £billions, yet I haven’t met a single person that supported it. So, in spite of the fact that the government went against public opinion, justified the war on what were at best ‘flaky’ grounds and our soldiers are dying every week, this government does not believe we have the right to know why, how they reached their decision and on what evidence? Does this suggest that this pathetic excuse for a government with spineless cabinet ministers believes that, whilst the people of this country are objective and mature enough to vote them in, that we lack the maturity, gravitas and objectivity to form our own opinions on what this government did in OUR name? Does the arrogance of this government have no limits?

Whilst there may be some justification in using a ministerial veto where national security is in question, it is an abuse in the extreme, to use it simply to save the blushes of those that were party to a decision to take this country to war. Is there a more serious decision for a government to take, than committing their country to war, what possible justification is there in hiding the justification? This is what Jack Straw had to say “there is a balance to be struck between openness and maintaining aspects of our structure of democratic government.” Forgive me Mr Straw, but the commonly held definition of ‘democratic’ is ‘constructed upon the principle of government by the people’. Perhaps what Mr Straw meant to say was authoritarian?

If that was not bad enough, The Conservatives are  quoted as saying the decision was “right” since the release of the minutes would make ministers more reluctant to discuss controversial subjects in future, impeding good government. That is utter crap. We are ALL supposed to be responsible for our decisions, unless or until we are judged to have been incapable of knowing right from wrong at the time. So what gives Cabinet ministers an exemption from common law or makes the Conservatives believe they should be? If ever there was clear evidence of MP’s believing they are a cut above the rest of us, and exempt from the same rules that the rest of us have to abide by, this is it. From the mouths of a senior cabinet minister and a spokesperson for the Conservatives.

David Howarth, Justice spokesman for the LibDems said the decision was “more to do with preventing embarrassment than protecting the system of government“. That just about sums it up, this veto was used to save embarrassment, to protect reputations. In a New Labour democracy, we are not entitled or trusted to form our own opinions on the basis of the facts. What particularly disgusts and shocks me is the fact that Cameron’s conservative party should also support this veto, Cameron should be ashamed and, if he is so contemptuous of the British people, Cameron does not deserve to be elected prime minister of this country.

How can the government of any modern democracy refuse to entrust the electorate with the reasons they decided to take us to war? If the government has nothing to hide, then why do they refuse to release the minutes? Surely if they were fully justified in sending our troops to Iraq, then the minutes will attest to that fact? Of course, Jack Straw is not a particular fan of open government, but this was a decision that had to be agreed by the current cabinet, many of whom were not party to the original meetings. Why did the Cabinet support the use of this ministerial veto based on the grounds of vanity? Perhaps they truly are spineless, maybe they are contemptuous of the British public, or simply willing to cover up for their former masters and colleagues? I don’t know, but something stinks!