Rumours are abound that Gordon Brown intends to complete a cabinet reshuffle either, at the end of this week, or during the course of next week, especially if, as expected, Labour get a drubbing at the local and EU elections.

What has shocked me however, is that Gordon Brown is said to be considering promoting Ed Balls to Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he does that, then there really is a strong case for someone to send the men in white coats to Downing Street. So, from The Undertaker to The Clown, little wonder this country is in such a mess! Now I accept that Ed Balls is Brown’s best buddy, god know he needs them, but Balls is completely inept. His idea of selling something to the public is to keep repeating himself in the hope that we will get worn in submission. Ed Balls can barely string a sentence together, he is a poor commons debater, a useless TV performer and, lets face it, his first ministerial post as Schools Secretary has hardly been a success. In fact, the only ’success’ he can claim is his innate ability to shift the blame onto others.

Loyalty, obedience and arse licking may be fine attributes for a dog, but not a Chancellor. Moving from Alistair Darling to Ed Balls can only be described as going from The Undertaker, to The Clown. At a time when this country is an economic basketcase, we need the very best available in the role of Chancellor, not another puppet. Some may claim that Ed Balls has experience because of his time at the Treasury, but he was just a messenger boy there, so he can more claim to be a Chancellor than an orator can claim to be a writer. If Gordon Brown decided to appoint Ed Balls to Chancellor then it is quite clear Brown has no interest in this country or the people of this country, his primary interest is himself and his buddies. One or two commentators have suggested that Ed Balls is highly respected in the City, so, my first question is, WHY? The second is how come so many people within the City are going on record to say the opposite?

Apart from the fact that Ed Balls does not possess the skills, gravitas or experience to take on the role of Chancellor, there is also the question of his moral rectitude. Ed Balls is married to Yvette Cooper and they both claim the Additional Cost Allowances for their London property, which they have designated as their second home, albeit not at the maximum rate, but they only need one home, don’t they? Similarly, between them, it is reported that they claim £600 per month in food allowances. Whilst what they have done is “within the rules”, the fact remains that they have nominated three different properties in two years to be their main residence. With both in ministerial posts, they have a combined salary of nearly £300,000 per year, they are hardly destitute nor are they in desperate need of the Additional Cost Allowances. Can this be described as prudence? Can we really trust a man that is quite willing to work the rules to maximise his allowances to seek value for the taxpayer? I don’t think so.

Gordon Brown is finished, but if he wants to demonstrate that he is also a complete idiot, then all he needs to do is appoint Ed Balls as Chancellor.

On a side note, I am please that char lady to the Police, Jacqui Smith is to quit at the next Cabinet reshuffle, but given she was expected to go anyway, all this is designed to do is allow her to leave with dignity. But we know the truth, she is, and always was, a useless Home Secretary who, instead of controlling and directing her departments, just became their gofer, char lady, bag holder. Good riddance. We now need a Home Secretary that does not believe in destroying individual liberty in a vain and discredited hope of reducing the risk of crime and terrorism.

Whilst I am not surprised that two of the most inept women in politics (Jacqui Smith and Harriet Harman) are pushing a bill to allow a prosecution without intent, I am shocked that the rest of the cabinet have allowed them to announce it. I am of course referring to the proposal to change the law relating to prostitution and trafficking.

Now let me put my cards on the table. I do not and have never used a prostitute. Nor, do I pretend to understand why a woman would want to sell her body or a man pay for sex without the usual intimacy. That may make me a little square or old fashioned and I will accept that criticsm, albeit I have a right to my opinion. However, I do respect a woman’s right to sell her body if she wishes and a man’s to pay for sex if that is his will. Two consenting adults conducting a transaction that hurts no-one is none of my business. Therefore, whilst I must confess I do not fully understand the motivation for the two parties, I do not judge either party, nor do I say they should have the right to make that choice removed.

My concern here is the fact that these two cabinet ministers a peddling a piece of legislation that if introduced in its current form, will change some of the fundamentals of our criminal laws in this country and add nothing to the cause of vulnerable prostitutes. This is because Smith and Harman now intend to introduce legislation that will make it an offence if a man has sex with a woman who is under the control of a third party, such as a pimp, or has been trafficked or forced into prostitution against her will. Here is the issue, The home secretary has made clear that under the proposed legislation it will not be enough for a man to say “I didn’t know”. The new offence will include a “strict liability” test so that police will only have to prove that the man paid for sex, and that the woman had been trafficked. There will be no need to prove he knew it at the time.

In other words, even if the man asked the prostitute if she had been trafficked, was working under duress, or for a pimp and she says NO, if he pays for sex with her, he will still be guilty of an offence, which could even result in a prosecution for rape, which comes with a potential life tariff. Therefore, in spite of the fact that it could be argued that the man was diligent and had no intent, he could still be found guilty of one of the most serious offences on the statute book. Not only that, but if the Metropolitan Police figures are to believed, some 70% of prostitutes would fall into this category, which means a man seeking out the services of a prostitute has, in effect, a 70% chance of committing an imprisonable offence.

I am no law expert, but by introducing a “strict liability” clause into criminal law, (I believe it is already used in civil law), means a serious criminal offence can be committed without there being any intent. Now I know that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but this legislation means that even if a man asked the necessary questions and was given the appropriate responses, he is still playing a game of Russian Roulette, with odds that would not be lawful in a casino! Worst still, the man doesn’t even need to have sex in order to commit the offence, he just has to conduct the transaction. This type of law is without precedence in a developed country.

My other concern is, what message does it send out to women who have been raped in the conventionally accepted sense (sorry I couldn’t find a better way of describing this). Rape is one of the most abhorrent crimes on the statute book, yet here, a man can be charged and found guilty of rape, for having sex with a prostitute that has been trafficked or is under the control of a pimp, even if he believed this was not the case. Now compare this with a man that stalks and rapes his victim, or one where a young girl is fed with a date rape drug and subsequently raped, are these offences the same? Because theoretically the charge and sentence would be identical, just brought under different criminal Acts.

Without wishing to be melodramatic about the whole issue, is it not possible that some men will take the view that if they have a 2 in 3 chance of being charged with rape for having sex with a prostitute, that they may as well take their chances elsewhere? A ridiculous or plausible suggestion? This proposed legislation, it will achieve nothing. I strongly suspect that if the Police do bring prosecutions, that even though the judges are only there to intepret and implement the law, they may well demonstrate their contempt for this legislation when it comes to sentencing.

Even the English Collective of Prostitutes has rang the alarm bells saying that they believe it will make prostitutes more, not less vulnerable and run the risk of driving prostitution underground. In fact a spokesperson for the Collective even stated that they believe the governments claim that “most” prostitutes have been trafficked is a “complete fabrication”. Nicki Adams from the Collective is quoted as saying: “What we do know is that women from all walks of life, also working as teachers and students, are also working in prostitution. It’s consenting sex.”

One question I have is that if 70% of the women working as prostitutes have been trafficked or are controlled by pimps, why can’t the police go in and rescue them? By implication, the police are suggesting that they know that 2 out of every 3 prostitutes they find, will have been trafficked or under the control of a pimp. By not ’saving’ these women, they are in effect, allowing them to act as an Agent Provocateur. Quite frankly the whole thing is a complete mess.

Surely there is no logic in introducing a new law that attempts to create a situation where a man can be found guilty of a serious charge even though there may well be no criminal intent. My own view, is that the government should have been more forthright. If they wanted to make prostitution illegal, then they should have done so. Of course they wouldn’t because there would have been a massive backlash in what is accepted as the oldest profession in the world. This legislation if passed, poses a massive risk that if two consenting adults conduct a transaction for sex, one could face very, very serious charges. What will these men do in the face of such dire consequences, will they accept the risk, will they look elsewhere? I would hate to speculate what the consequences of this ill-though out, draconian, unwanted law would be.

I have lived in a country where prostitution is legal. Women work from brothels which are licensed and controlled. This takes most, albeit not all, prostitutes off the street. It means the police know where they are and the authorities can keep an eye on things. Charities have access to the prostitutes and can raise the alarm if anything is untoward. The public do not have to put up with prostitutes walking the street or industrial estates at night. Prostitutes are in a relatively safe and protected environment. The prostitutes earn a living and the men get to have sex with a consenting partner, albeit for sex. Legislation can no more stop prostitution than it can prevent drug use. Introducing a law that seeks to criminalise sex with a prostitute in this way is an appalling use of the legislature and a clear abuse of power.

I am fortunate that I do not live in an area frequented by prostitutes. So I can say in all honesty, they don’t bother me. A transaction that takes place out of sight, between two consenting adults is okay with me. I don’t find it objectionable. On the other hand, girls that have been forced into prostitution by a pimp or trafficker are entitled to expect the protection of the law. The police have existing powers to prosecute the pimps and traffickers. If so many girls fall under this new legislation, then it must be easy pickings for the police. So why don’t they get off their backsides and prosecute the scum that would seek to profit at the expense of these victims of crime? The police in this country have gone soft, they don’t want to have the problem of investigating and proving crime anymore, they just want the laws changed so that virtually everything we do or say can lead to a prosecution and now, if this bill becomes law, there won’t even have to be intent.

Since I was sufficiently outraged to write an article about the goverment’s latest move to increase its powers to spy on the its own citizens, there has been a healthy and, for the most part, positive response. It is clear that there are many people out there that share most, if not all of my sentiments and are able, and willing to add their voice, or blog, to the cause by reproducing the article with their own comments or thoughts. For all of those people that have done this, I would like to offer my thanks and I would also urge those who have not, that believe the state is gaining too much power, to do likewise and reprint my article, or a version of their own, based on the same theme. Please feel free to use as much of the content of my article as you wish.

Over at ShrewMammal.com, the author has introduced his own way of indicating his disgust at the was in which this government is steadily increasing its ability to spy on the public by stealth. He is urging people to include the tag ‘RESIST‘ in all like minded posts and has included a logo which I have included on the front of my own blog. Several people have also suggested that I join NO2ID and the Open Rights Group. I think this was good advice and I will act on these suggestions. However, there is a caveat to all this, because I remain convinced that we all need to act as individuals as well as groups.

There is a real risk that if we leave the arguments to dedicated and well-meaning groups, that we do, by default, pass our individual responsibility for doing something tangible to others. I know it is possible to participate in these groups and have your personal views considered and taken into account. That said, surely it is better to join and support these groups as well as making a noise on our own? Part of the reason that government’s are able to introduce such draconian laws is because we are represented as groups and not individuals. It is much easier for government to target and rubbish groups, than it is the entire electorate, they do it all of the time. At least that is my view.

I shall live by my own argument, I will support groups that have similar values to my own, whilst continuing to disseminate my own views and I will try garner as much support for these arguments as I can with other like minded people. That way we get the best of both worlds!

With the level of information that is gathered on every single individual in this country and the government’s powers to access it, there is little or nothing that we can do or say which cannot be accessed by government through the introduction of new legislation. In fact, it is not just government’s that has access, to this information, but tools of government, the police, security services, local authorities, customs and excise, even commercial organisations, such as insurance companies, parking companies and so on. Many of the laws that have been introduced have been brought about by the risk of terrorism and the need to combat it. But lets be honest, there is no rhyme or reason why everyone of us, all 65m, should become ’suspects’ for the sake of tracking a few thousand individuals with questionable or even life-threatening motives. I can only speak from a personal perspective, but I would sooner face the minute risk of becoming a victim, rather than see so much state control and interference in my everyday life.

I am also, personally, sick and tired of the vocal, perhaps even well-meaning individuals, that insist that anyone who objects to this level of surveillance and government intrusion must have something to hide. This is utter bullshit. I have nothing to hide, in fact, I am quite willing to publicise my views on this blog, come what may. Government’s throughout the years have relied on a sheep mentality, they indoctrinate through the media, everyone’s thoughts in terms of the risks of terrorist attack, in order to justify their latest attack on our civil liberties and entrenched right to privacy. The sheep take it hook line and sinker. The sheep show no sign of being able to think as individuals, they think if something is published in the press, then it must be true, if something is said by a politician, then it must be accurate, that if someone is wearing a suit…available for under a £100 at Matalan, then they must know better. What a sad, sad state of affairs.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own point of view, but this must be based on considering both sides of the case. I have considered carefully the views held by the sheep, but I remain to be convinced that 65m people should be spied on for the sake of catching a handful of people that may wish us harm. Throughout the ages, the masses have always been under threat, from war, terrorism, facism and so on. This Government has made no attempt to tell us precisely why they need so much information, instead, they just tell us that is is “necessary to combat terrorism and serious crime”. So next time I buy a car, if they salesman says it is a great car and he is wearing a suit, I should just buy it?

This is by no means exhaustive, but it is worth looking at how many databases are out there that contain information on our everyday habits and lives, not just government controlled, many are commercial, but of course, government bodies can have access to anything that is contained on a database, often without any court order, simply with the authorisation of a senior member of management. Some of these databases are essential, others and I mean the majority, highly controversial, particularly given the level detail held and the easy access by anyone with a suit!

Transport:

·     The DVLA hold a massive database on the cars that we own, or have owned in the past. Whether they have insurance, an MOT and the details of the registered owner. This information is even on sale to commercial companies.

·     ANPR and CCTV cameras monitor our every move, there are some 4.2m CCTV cameras in the UK, many on the road networks, so our journeys can literally be tracked from camera to camera. ANPR can be used to track individual cars using number plate recognition

·     Oyster cards, both in their current format and that proposed, can track our movements on any form of public transport.

·     Many vehicles now has SatNav fitted or trackers, this is a further instrument allowing the authorities to track movements with reverse engineering.

Health

·     More and more of our records are now held on a database and once the current multi-billion pound project is completed, we can expect everything, our full health history to be held on a database. Authorities, or maybe even commercial organisations, can access this information at will. They could find out when we have had colds, if we have suffered from any communicable diseases, if we have terminal ilnnesses, how many children we have, if we have ever suffered from depression, you name it, they know it. Often our most intimate details, that have been entrusted to someone that has signed the Hippocratic oath.

Shopping

·     The advent of loyalty cards allows commercial companies, such as supermarkets and other consumer goods stores to track what we buy, how often, what we pay and so on. In fact, from this information alone, you can get a very accurate picture of an individuals life. If it is on a database, the authorities can access it.

Travelling

·     Government’s now insist of exchanging information on passengers incuded on their manifest, air, sea etc. So now they know where we travel, what for, what method of transport we prefer, how much we paid, how long we stayed etc.

·     Passports will soon include more and more information, including, if the government gets its way, an iris scan, maybe even our DNA. There has also been a suggestion that passports include a microchip, which can be used to track movements (RFID).

Communications

·     Governments and its agencies have long had the right to tap telephones, albeit this had to be authorised at a very senior level within government or the judiciary. Not any more, already, government agencies routinely monitor telephone calls, internet traffic, email, mobile phone calls and text messages. Now they wish to include this on a massive database, information that will have to be held for 2 years. Before, there was the option for a ’service provider’ to request an independent review, to determine whether the information being requested was legitimate, lawful and reasonable. Now the government even wants to remove that right. Why, if they have nothing to hide? Government is now also insisting that passports are used when a prepaid phone is purchased.

·     Mobile phones can also be tracked via cell site analysis, so our every move can be tracked for the past 2 years, it is not entirely accurate, but it can provide a pretty good picture. With more and more phones now having GPS installed as standard, this information will be accurate to a few feet.

 ID Cards

·     I won’t go into the level of information that is being proposed to be held on ID cards, because it has been covered in many articles on the internet. Suffice to say, the chip on the ID cards will be a sort of chip, with access to so much information it is truly frightening, especially when you consider that whatever form of encryption they use, someone smarter than they, will be able to break the code.

DNA Database

·     Many people support a DNA database and I have to say, I have some sympathy for these views, this technology has been used to solve some very old crimes. However, we are so wrapped up in how DNA is as accurate as it is possible to be, we are prone to forget that it could be misused by anyone wanting to ‘frame’ someone, because a jury, may be so convinced of its accuracy, that they may not consider the possibility that the evidence could have been planted. Yes, call be paranoid, but how many times have we seen miscarriages of justice, because a ‘well meaning’ police officer “knew” that the person was guilty? A government intent on dealing with detractors could quite easily frame an individual with DNA evidence and with so many prone to lie to us, I would not trust them. Is this a database too far?

·     Where anything that is supposed to offer irrefutable proof of guilt (or I accept innocence), there needs to be very powerful oversight, given most people are inclined to believe DNA evidence.

·     Another issue with DNA, is the fact that the taking of this is now routine for any arrest, no matter how minor. We have the largest DNA database in the world. It is no longer used just to track offenders, but as a way to tell us about our futures, our genetic disposition to certain ailments, diseases, life spans etc. The more information they have on the DNA database, the more they can compare, which means that very soon, government will be able to forecast our futures, certainly from a health perspective.

The list goes on and this post could end up exceeding 10,000 words if I were to add each one and provide a details explanation. We are all able to complete our research online into any or all of these tools of government, therefore I will not seek to do it on this post. My intention is only to highlight just how much of our personal lives and how many of our civil liberties are already at risk, let alone what we will lose with the additional powers the government is seeking. Any government that wanted to know how its citizens were intending to vote, could access any number of these tools and get a pretty good idea, how democratic is that?

 You can call me paranoid, but I cannot be accused of nothing to hide, because quite clearly, by life is already an open book for any government officer with the authority to delve into my affairs. They will be wasting their time and our money. But as my life is an open book, so is yours. Everyone, everywhere must have something that they would not want other to know, not because it is illegal, but because it is in the past, embarassing, or could be easily misunderstood. It is our very right to close the door when we go to the toilet or do our most intimate things, we should not have to be concerned about Big Brother, the state watching our every move. The ballot box will not remove existing laws, the ballot box cannot stop this government from introducing unreasonable acts against the will of the majority, but we can, if we are motivated to do so, push our case, publicise our views. So why not write your own version of my article, draft your own letter and make your point on the blogosphere. Let us all see how democratic this country really is, because I suspect, we have been so indoctrinated to take government ministers at face value, that we will, soon find that our opinions don’t matter any longer.

RESIST!

“I prefer liberty with danger than peace with slavery”

Subscribe to Big Brother Britain

Email:

Visit this group

Transport Secretary, Geoff Hoon, also know as Geoff the Buffoon has indicated that he is prepared to ignore our civil liberties in support of the proposed database that Jacqi Smith wants to bring in.

When asked on BBC’s question time by Lib Dems’ communities spokeswoman Julia Goldsworthy “How much more control can they have. How far is he prepared to go to undermine civil liberties?”. Geoff Hoon interupted with the following response “To stop terrorists killing people in our society, quite a long way actually. “If they are going to use the internet to communicate with each other and we don’t have the power to deal with that, then you are giving a licence to terrorists to kill people.”

This is further evidence if any were needed that this government and it’s minister will go to any lengths to further pry into the private affairs of its citizins, in the complete knowledge that this will infringe our civil liberties as was actually knowledged by Hoon’s statement. This government continues to use fear as a weapon to increase their hold over the public and it has got to stop. The majority of people shrug their shoulders, but they shouldn’t, they must sit up and take notice. We are already the most spied nation on earth with some 4.2m CCTV cameras, but do you feel any safer..No!

This is what I said in my article yesterday (Public must call time on Big Brother Britain):

It is expected that plans to collect more data on people’s phone, e-mail and web-browsing habits will be included in the innocuously sounding ”Communications Data Bill”, due to be introduced in the Queen’s Speech in November. By all accounts, these proposals are supported by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, Gordon Brown and much of the Labour government. Once again, the government is expected to justify this gross intrusion into the personal lives of 65m people under the auspices of ‘counter-terrorism’, this is utter garbage, they know it and we know it. Yes, there are terrorists out there and they don’t wear badges, but this country has faced terrorism before and the security forces managed to investigate and prosecute without such laws.

There is a radio advert doing the rounds at the moment which claims that some 6 plumbers per week, die from asbestos related diseases. That is over 300 per year. In 2007, some 2940 people were killed on our roads. In spite of these appalling numbers, we have not witnessed a massive increase in legislation to prevent these deaths, or a massive erosion of our civil liberties. As attrocious and upsetting as the July bombings were, in the 3 years since, 3 times as many farmers were killed in farm accidents. Police and security forces have received a significant increase in budgets for front-line personnel in name name of combatting terrorism and I have no criticsm of this extra money, but it is time we put it into perspective.

How many people have been killed over the years to protect the civil liberties and freedoms we used to enjoy until New Labour came to power? How many people have died to protect us from tyranny? The answer is millions. For 30 years we endured terrorism on the mainland, yet no government sought to remove our rights and freedoms, this has been left to New Labour. It is fear that ensures public compliance, but this is actually manipulation. This government, your government wants to read your emails, monitor your telephone calls and texts and look over your shoulder as you read this article. How is that going to stop terrorists?

Whenever the government wants to get legislation through that seeks to remove our rights as citizens and our liberties, they come up with another “plot”, take your mind back. In fact, they did the same thing only a few days ago, this time when they wanted to extend the detention without trial from 28 to 42 days. Our own government is manipulating it’s people, it is raising the stakes by trying to promote fear, yet, if you are a farmer, you are more likely to be killed at work that my a terrorist, you are more likely in fact, to die in a plane accident, than die at the hands of a terrorist. Knowledge is power and this government is obsessed with power. they know that is they have knowledge of it’s citizens, then they have ultimate power. Yet, we are supposed to be in charge, not them.

We must tell our elected member of parliament that enough is enough, we must instruct them not to vote for this draconan piece of legislation. This is what I proposed in my article yesterday.

We must demonstrate to our MP’s that they should be more in fear of the wrath of the British public that the Chief Whip of their own parties. Opposition MP’s should do their jobs and oppose this draconian piece of legislation. We must also warn our local members of parliament that if they vote for this Act, that we will not vote for them, we must make it clear, that we have a voice, not once every 5 years, but throughout their tenure and that we will have it heard. Everyone that feels this Act is a direct infringement of our civil liberties, right to privacy and an attack on the very fabric of our society, should write to their MP and tell them so. I have provided a ‘draft letter’ which can be viewed, personalised and sent to your MP. Draft Letter to MP

I would also invite all fellow bloggers that feel as strongly as I do on this issue to reproduce this article in part or full, topped and tailed if they wish, to publicise this issue to as many people as possible. Let us all stand up and fight in this issue, and remind this government who is actually in charge.

RESIST!

Subscribe to Big Brother Britain

Email:

Visit this group

Enough is enough, the UK is becoming a police state by our control obsessed government and we are sitting back and allowing it to happen. It makes me angry to see such lethargy. Everytime a new act is brought in, far more sinister aspects are buried in the detail, which further curtail our civil liberties, freedom and privacy. This has got to stop and now, state should not be permitted to control the people, it should be the other way around. As it stands, just 650 members of parliament are pushing some 65m people around, yes, I mean 650, because whilst this government may have a majority, the MP’s from other parties are not making enough noise about this massive intrusion into our lives, they should be fired, the lot of them. We are quick to condemn the bankers (rightly so in many cases), but we do nothing about the MP’s that have consistently introduced or supported Acts of Parliament that intrude into our lives, in a way that will affect us for many years to come. We must put a stop to it.

It is expected that plans to collect more data on people’s phone, e-mail and web-browsing habits will be included in the innocuously sounding ”Communications Data Bill”, due to be introduced in the Queen’s Speech in November. By all accounts, these proposals are supported by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, Gordon Brown and much of the Labour government. Once again, the government is expected to justify this gross intrusion into the personal lives of 65m people under the auspices of ‘counter-terrorism’, this is utter garbage, they know it and we know it. Yes, there are terrorists out there and they don’t wear badges, but this country has faced terrorism before and the security forces managed to investigate and prosecute without such laws.

I don’t know how many terrorists are out there, but it is not 65m and is probably less that a couple of thousand, why should the privacy and personal of 65m people be invaded by this government because of a few people that mean us harm? This whole thing needs to be put in perspective, more people in the UK die on the roads than as a result of terrorism, more soldiers are killed abroad, than in the UK as a result of terrorism, in fact, more people are killed in farming accidents than as a consequence of terrorism. This government has invested massively in the security services, allowing them to go on a substantial recruitment drive, there should be no need for a massive Big Brother surveillance operation of the entire population of the UK. Before some smart-arse suggests that it is this surveillance and investment in the security services that has reduced the number of terrorist incidents in the UK, I would ask them to provide further evidence that this is the case and then to put it into perspective. For example, it is well know that the airline industry work out whether safety mechanisms are worth introducing on their planes on the basis of a cost/benefit analysis. In other words, will the costs associated with an accident outweigh the cost of implementing the safety programmes. Fact of life, they all do it, they just rarely tell us!

Of course the government will issue the usual platitudes and assurances that they will not misuse this information, but can we believe them. The Icelandic authorities had their assets frozen using anti-terror laws, in spite of the fact that there were other laws that could have been used and would have been just as effective. A local council used anti-terror legislation to spy on the parents of a child that they throught was in the wrong ‘catchment area’. This list, trust me, goes on and on. We also know that this government and it’s private sector partners are incapapble of securing data, which means our personal lives could be open to all and sundry. Some will argue that if you have nothing to hide, then there is nothing to hide, these same people probably still believe in Father Christmas. As we know information, any information can be used in different ways, depending on the intepretation of the recipient, how many times have we all said or done something that was completely misrepresented?

I have nothing to hide, but I object strongly to my personal calls, web browsing habits and email being monitored and invaded by the state. Government’s could even misuse this information to find out how we intend to vote! It is an appalling proposal and it is high time the British public called time on this control obsessed government and it’s supporters, irrespective of which party they represent. This goes beyond party politics, it is a direct attack on the very fabric of our society and no-one will be safe from government interference if it is allowed to pass into law. If the government believe that this act is so important, then they should allow the British people to vote on it through a referendum, I believe they will get a resounding No…and they know it!

People often tell me that there is “not much we can do”, but there is. Our members of parliament are worried sick that they may lose their seat at the next election, we must emphasise to them that if they support this attack on our civil liberties that we guarantee they will. We must demonstrate to our MP’s that they should be more in fear of the wrath of the British public that the Chief Whip of their own parties. Opposition MP’s should do their jobs and oppose this draconian piece of legislation. We must also warn our local members of parliament that if they vote for this Act, then we will not vote for them, we must make it clear, that we have a voice, not once every 5 years, but throughout their tenure and that we will have it heard. Everyone that feels this Act is a direct infringement of our civil liberties, right to privacy and an attack on the very fabric of our society, should write to their MP and tell them so. I have provided a ‘draft letter’ which can be viewed, personalised and sent to your MP. Draft Letter to MP

I would also invite all fellow bloggers that feel as strongly as I do on this issue to reproduce this article in part or full, topped and tailed if they wish, to publicise this issue to as many people as possible. Let us all stand up and fight in this issue, and remind this government who is actually in charge.

RESIST!

For more information on how the UK government is steadily eroding our rights to privacy and our civil liberties, I would recommend that you take a look at these articles. Privacy Controls - Nothing to Hide

Subscribe to Big Brother Britain

Email:

Visit this group