Comment is Free resumes its usual level of twaddle. This time from Clive Soley who spouts a positive tidal wave of New Labour propaganda:
There is a dangerous fallacy around, fed by a newly resurgent Conservative party, that Britain under Labour is less free than it used to be. It’s not true.
Yes it is: The Identity Cards Act 2006, the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, amendments to the Criminal Justice Act, reduction on Habeas Corpus, restrictions on freedom of speech… I could go on, but it is clear that even a cursory glance exposes this clap-trap for what it is. And, the idea that this is the preserve of a “newly resurgent Conservative party” is piffle.
[Shami Chakrabati] She is wrong in saying that Britain is worse than other countries and I nearly made a claim to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) on Liberty’s recent advertisement about comparative international incarceration rates for detention without charge. I think she just about stayed within the letter of the ASA code but certainly not the spirit of it.
You fuckwit. She either spoke the truth or she did not. If she stayed within the letter of the ASA code, then it was the truth. Let’s look at that advertisement, shall we?
Under current anti-terror laws you can be locked up and repeatedly questioned by police for up to 28 days without being charged. You might not even be told why you are there.
True.
Pre-charge detention refers to the period of time that an individual can be held and questioned by police before being charged with an offence.
True
For individuals suspected of terrorism, the maximum period is currently 28 days – seven times the limit for someone suspected of murder.
On 6 December 2007 the Home Secretary announced new anti-terror proposals, which include extending this maximum limit to 42 days.
True
The advert also lists other countries in the Western world and the time that suspects may be held prior to being charged:
-
Canada – 1 day
-
USA – 2 days
-
Russia – 5 days
-
France – 6 days
-
Ireland 7 days
-
Turkey – 7.5 days
-
The good old UK – 28 days
This is a simple matter of fact. So how, exactly is this in breach of the ASA’s code? Oh, that’s right, it isn’t. Clive Soley is a fuckwit of the first water – a New Labour apologist who is prepared to lie in order to justify the unjustifiable.
This disingenuous arsehole points to what he perceives as an inconsistency in Liberty’s figures. France, for example:
France locks terror suspects up for anything up to four years and then deports them to beacons of civil liberty like Algeria.
If you follow the link – to the Independent of all places – you will notice a significant (but omitted from Soley’s missive) fact. France does, indeed lock suspects up for a period of up to four years after they have been charged. And this shithead has the gall to accuse others of being disingenuous.
Then, of course, it gets party political:
The political risk the critics run by overstating their case is that they give a great deal of support to the Tory party, who already relish the sight of a Labour government being described by its supporters as worse than any other. So let’s look at the recent (forgotten) past.
Er, yes? So? In a democracy, it is usual to have an opposition that is supposed to be a government in waiting. That ours are a bunch of wasters is another matter. To suggest that we not criticise the government because it might mean that the other lot get in is, frankly, preposterous. And, that many, like myself erstwhile supporters, are now its fiercest critics should tell him something.
In the 1970s Britain locked up close to 2,000 people for up to two years without charge or trial. That couldn’t happen now.
Ah, yes, interment – not one of our better episodes. Actually, it could happen now. Not very likely, I grant you and not (so far as I am aware) 2 years, but under current (and proposed) Terrorism legislation, there’s nothing (short of prison places) to stop 2,000 people being locked up without charge or trial. And, to quote a wrong as justification for a wrong won’t wash. Interment was wrong; locking suspects up for 28 days – or more – is wrong. Justifying the latter with the former is wrong.
And remember the wrongful convictions in Birmingham and Guildford to name but two? At that time there was no recording of police interviews and no contact with solicitors, relatives or friends in the first week of detention. That doesn’t happen now.
Bollocks. Sally Clark? Angela Cannings? Wrongful convictions do still happen despite contact with solicitors and the recording of interviews – and, to imply that improvements in the system wouldn’t have otherwise happened is simply disingenuous.
Ultimately, this poisonous specimen wants to hold suspects – who have not been charged with an offence – for longer than the current 28 days:
I don’t understand why we don’t apply continental law to this tiny number of people and hold them – not for as long as the French, German’s and others do – but for a period longer, in exceptional cases, than the present 28 days while questioning continues under judicial supervision.
Well, forgetting for a moment that he is comparing apples with oranges (a typical New Lab trick); it’s because they might not be guilty of anything, that’s why. If the police have evidence, then bring charges. If not, then let them go. If this means that guilty people are not charged, so be it. That is how criminal justice in a liberal democracy is supposed to work. That inconvenient “innocent until proven guilty” thing is there to protect us all from an over eager state.
If the evidence is not acceptable in the courts – such as intercept evidence – then seek a change in the law to allow such evidence and then charge the suspect accordingly. Ruining someone’s life just because you can is an erosion of liberty – an unacceptable erosion. Of course, Clive Soley is smug enough to believe that it will only be brown people affected and he won’t have to worry about the consequences of his totalitarian politics.
We should not fall into the trap of agreeing that we have lost liberties when we have gained so many.
Fucking hellski* what has this dickhead been taking? Of course we have lost liberties. Tried protesting in Parliament Square lately? Or reading the names of the dead by the Cenotaph? What about selling “Bollocks to Blair” T shirts?
Though, what I suspect this shit-for-brains means is “positive liberty” the one Tony Blair bleated about. Liberty granted to us by the state. However, the state does not grant liberty; the state takes liberty. Every piece of legislation is designed to reduce liberty. Yes, sometimes it is necessary but the binge legislation of the past decade is mostly not necessary. And, no, the state has not granted us any liberty whatsoever. None. Nil. Nada. Non.
Neither should we make the mistake of thinking that only middle-class values on liberty matter. Opposition to Asbos and cameras in public places are the classic examples of a misplaced set of standards on civil liberties. The people I used to represent in high-crime areas actually enjoy the civil liberty of going out with a far lower fear of crime then they did previously.
Ah, yes, I was right – positive liberty. While I understand the fears of people experiencing anti-social behaviour, let us not forget just what Asbos actually mean; they mean that you can be sent to gaol without having committed a criminal offence; they mean that you can be awarded one on the basis of gossip; they are not subject to the scruitiny of a jury. That’s what Clive Soley means by liberty – this man is distorting the word beyond any recognisable meaning – another New Labour tactic.
ID cards, which are common in so many democracies, will make people trafficking more difficult. Although their advantages are probably overestimated they are not a serious threat to civil liberties in the way that some allege.
Fucking, fuckitty fuckwits dancing in a turd-filled cesspit! Yet again we see a New Labour stooge trotting out the latest scare story (in this case people trafficking) as a justification for tagging us all like cattle. THIS IS A LIE! How, exactly, will ID cards stop people trafficking? How? Does he explain this absurd, unsullied by evidence assertion? No, of course not, because it is simply an empty assertion; another one plucked out of the hat to justify a “papers, please” society where we have to justify our existence to the state; where we have to hand over our identities to be managed by the state; where we become the chattels instead of the masters.
Clive Soley is one nasty piece of work; an enemy of liberty and liberal democracy. This is someone well deserving of the lamp post, rope and spike treatment.
Jesus, what an arsehole.
* Borrowed with thanks from DK
—————————————————-
Update: I notice that “Sellout” Soley is getting a well deserved kicking in the comments. long may it continue.