|
Bomb victims mother pleads for Police state - Murdochs Media run with this:
|
|
|
The Problem Reaction Solution Paradigm
(The Hegelian Dialectic)
1) The government creates or exploits a problem blaming it on others
2) The people react by asking the government for help willing to give up their rights
3) The government offers the solution that was planned long before the crisis
|
7/7 victims' kin assail anti-Blair MPs
Nabanita Sircar - London, November 10, 2005
The 39 rebel Labour MPs who helped the Tories to defeat Tony Blair's proposal to allow Police to detain terror suspects for 90 days without charge would lose some of their victory smile as public starts to lambaste them. A mother of one of the July 7 bomb victims was the first to hit out and assail them.
She said 28 days would not be enough to find out what suspects knew. Hair stylist Phil Beer, 22, from Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, was killed in the Tube blast near King's Cross.
His mother Kim, 47, said: "They should be able to hold them for 90 days. You are not going to get anything sorted out in 28 days." She added: "The politicians should stand behind the police and help them. But if the authorities had done their job properly four months ago, when these people were being trailed and thought not to be a threat, then they would not have been allowed to kill 52 innocent people."
One Stephen Vaughan whose friends Samantha Badham, 35 and her partner Lee Harris, 30, were killed in the King's Cross blast, said he was disappointed that the Government's plans had been defeated. "Perhaps before July 7 my opinion might have been different but now I feel that as a society we should invest more trust in the police and the process of government in a situation that is completely abnormal."
Vaughan, a photographer, said he believed that the loss of a terror suspect's liberty for that period of time was justified, adding: "I do have my reservations but I lost two friends and if that law had been in place maybe things would have been different." - hindustan times
|
|
Of interest:
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
165. Section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires the Minister in charge of a Bill in either house of Parliament to make a statement about the compatibility of the provisions of the Bill with the Convention rights (as defined by section 1 of that Act). The Home Secretary (the Rt. Hon. Charles Clarke) has made the following statement:
"In my view the provisions of the Terrorism Bill are compatible with the Convention rights"
166. The Bill raises a number of issues which affect rights under the European Convention of Human Rights. Those considered to be the most significant are set out below.
167. Clause 1 raises issues in relation to the requirement in Article 7 that the criminal law should be sufficiently accessible and precise to enable an individual to know in advance whether his conduct is criminal. This requirement is relevant in the context of clause 1 because the offence is one of degree where a judgement will need to be made as to whether a particular statement falls to be classified as an offence or not. The Home Office has concluded that in its view the clause is compatible with Article 7 because the constituent parts of the offence are clearly laid out in a publicly accessible piece of primary legislation and the consequences of action falling within the offence are clearly formulated in the clause.
168. In the opinion of the Home Office the defences in clause 1(5) and clause 2(8) and (9) place a legal burden of proof on the defence in relation to the elements of those defences. Accordingly, this raises issues under Article 6(2). In the view of the Home Office the placing of such a burden on the defence does not breach the presumption of innocence in Article 6(2) because the matters in the defences are within the knowledge of the defendant.
169. Clauses 1, 2, 6 and 21 engage Article 10, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression, to the extent that they impose restrictions on that freedom. However, as the restrictions relate to statements that encourage terrorism, could be useful to terrorists or amount to training in terrorist skills, the Home Office's view is that any such interference can be justified under Article 10(2) as being necessary and proportionate measures in the interests of national security and for the prevention of disorder or crime.
170. The provisions of clause 3 have the effect that a person cannot take advantage of the defences in clauses 1 and 2 if he has been served with a notice under that clause and failed to comply with it. In such circumstances, he will be deemed to have endorsed the statement or publication in respect of which he is prosecuted. However, the Home Office considers that this does not breach Article 6(2) by presuming the person's endorsement because the notice will set out the consequences of any failure to comply with it. Clause 3 also provides a reasonable excuse defence for a failure to comply with the notice.
171. Article 1 of the First Protocol, which protects the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, is engaged by clause 7 and clause 27 (in connection with Schedule 2). It is engaged by those provisions because they involve the possibility of permanently depriving a person of his possessions. In the case of clause 7 those possessions would be associated with terrorism training and in relation to clause 27 and Schedule 2 those possessions would be terrorist publications. The Home Office's view is that any interference with Article 1 of the First Protocol can be justified as a legitimate and proportionate control of use of property in the general and public interest of the prevention of crime and in association with criminal proceedings.
172. Clause 12 raises issues under the requirement in Article 7 that the criminal law should be sufficiently accessible and precise because a person must know the boundaries of a civil nuclear site in order to know whether he is committing an offence by crossing them. The Home Office is of the view that the offence is compatible with Article 7 because each civil nuclear site has a clear perimeter fence.
173. Clause 21 engages Article 11, which protects the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association (clause 21 also engages Article 10 - see paragraph 3 above). The freedom of association aspect of Article 11 is engaged by clause 21 because it expands the grounds on which an organisation can be proscribed and, if an organisation is proscribed, membership of it becomes a criminal offence. However, the Home Office is of the view that, although the clause engages Article 11(1), any interference can be justified under Article 11(2) as necessary and proportionate in pursuit of the legitimate aims of national security and of the prevention of disorder or crime.
174. Clauses 23 and 24 engage Article 5, which protects the right to liberty and security of person. Those clauses engage Article 5 because they relate to a person who is detained having been arrested under section 41 of the TACT or detained under Schedule 7 to the TACT. Under clause 23 the maximum period of detention is extended from 14 days to three months and seven days is set as the normal period for which a judicial authority may authorise extension of the period of detention. Under clause 24 the circumstances in which a person's detention under Schedule 8 to the TACT can be continued are clarified. In relation to clause 23, the Home Office has concluded that detention under the new provisions is compatible with Article 5 because further extension is at the discretion of a judicial authority and under paragraph 37 of Schedule 8 a person must be released straight away if the reason for his detention ceases to apply before the seven day extension is at an end. In relation to clause 24, the Home Office has concluded that the provisions are compatible with Article 5 because they identify aspects of the investigation which is being conducted for the purpose of charging the detained person with an offence (or releasing him).
175. Clauses 25, 26 and 27 engage Article 8, which protects the right to private and family life, home and correspondence (clause 27 also engages Article 1 of the First Protocol - see paragraph 5 above). These clauses engage Article 8 because they involve powers to enter and search premises and seize items found there. The Home Office has concluded that any interference by these clauses with Article 8(1) can be justified under Article 8(2) as being necessary and proportionate in pursuit of the legitimate aims of national security and of the prevention of disorder or crime.
176. Clause 34 engages the right to a public judgment and hearing in Article 6 but the Home Office has concluded that the clause is compatible with those requirements because the changes made by it do not affect the hearing at which a final determination as to civil rights is made.
Explanatory notes
|
It seems Blair doesn't like democracy when it fails his agenda...
|
Cabinet rallies to defiant Blair as criticism mounts
By Andrew Grice, Political Editor - 11 November 2005
Tony Blair branded the rebel Labour MPs who defeated his anti-terrorism law "out of touch" as he rebuffed their demands for him to become a listening prime minister.
An uncompromising Mr Blair told the Cabinet yesterday that there was a gulf between MPs who rejected police requests for power to detain terrorist suspects for up to 90 days without charge and the reality of terror threats. Cabinet ministers rallied to Mr Blair, but senior backbenchers were furious about his comments and warned he must "listen more" to secure planned changes to education, health and welfare. Some rebels privately likened him to an "out-of-touch" Margaret Thatcher in the period before she was ousted in 1990.
David Winnick, a Labour MP who successfully proposed a 28-day detention limit on Wednesday, said: "The idea that those of us who voted for 28 days - the majority of MPs - don't understand the terrorist threat, that we are soft on terror and don't understand the menace from the mass murderers ...is poisonous nonsense. Not one single life of those innocent people murdered on 7 July would have been saved if it was 90 days."
Peter Kilfoyle, a former defence minister, said: "Any reality check should start at No 10. The Prime Minister is out of touch with his own party and both Houses. He can't keep playing the loyalty card. He said after the May election he had listened and learnt. If he listened, he hasn't learnt the right lessons."
Michael Meacher, the former environment minister, said: "We want a strong leader. But strong leaders do listen and take account of broad public opinion and the parliamentary party. There was a very rigid attempt to force through a decision that was never going to be acceptable."
Blair aides acknowledged privately that ministers would need to "communicate better and earlier" with Labour MPs as they made a case for reforms to schools, incapacity benefit and greater use of the private sector by the NHS. They recognised that the argument for a 90-day detention limit was made too late.
The Prime Minister's public message was issued after he met senior police officers, including Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and security service chiefs for what No 10 said was a routine, pre-arranged meeting to discuss counter-terrorism.
John Reid, the Defence Secretary, claimed that the Tories had made "a strategic mistake" by voting against a 90-day limit. "I believe that both Davis and Cameron are now crippled if they become leader of the Conservative Party," he said. "Because they are on the wrong side of the argument about national security."
In the aftermath of Mr Blair's first Commons defeat since coming to power, the Tories accused Labour of "politicising" the police force during a lobbying operation by police chiefs in favour of a 90-day limit. Several police chiefs spoke in favour of the proposal and Andy Hayman, an Assistant Metropolitan Police Commissioner, addressed groups of wavering Labour MPs.
Two former Tory cabinet ministers, Stephen Dorrell and Peter Lilley, tabled a Commons motion condemning "the unprecedented campaign to mobilise chief constables to lobby MPs in favour of government policy". They said it was "a damaging step towards the politicisation of the police".
Mr Dorrell said: "We need to ensure that the distinction is maintained between the process of policy-making, which is properly for the Government, and the enforcement of law, which is properly for police. The police should be independent of politics, not embroiled in it."
|
|
David Davies, a Tory backbencher, accused the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) of "behaving like an affiliated branch of the Labour Party". Downing Street and Acpo rejected the charge, insisting that the 90-day proposal was initially a police initiative and that chief constables were entitled to contact MPs to explain the rationale behind it.
Geoff Hoon, the Leader of the Commons, said MPs needed to hear police views. "No one is suggesting that police officers should be politicised," he said.
Michael Howard, the Tory leader, demanded that Mr Blair explain why he gave MPs inaccurate information about security operations in the run-up to Wednesday's vote. The Prime Minister said there had been arrests in relation to a terrorist operation last weekend. But Mr Howard said a No 10 spokeswoman had already conceded his comment referred to charges, rather than arrests. Two men arrested on 21 October were charged last Friday with conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to cause an explosion. But Scotland Yard said that there were no arrests related to terrorism last weekend. - Independent
|
|
|
Rookie cop Beshenivsky shot dead
Billy carries flowers for his Daughter
|
Cops & Robbers
WPC Beshenivsky, 38, a student officer who was married with three children and two stepchildren, was fatally shot in the chest when the robbers burst out of the travel agent's as she approached the premises on Friday afternoon. Her colleague, WPC Teresa Milburn, was shot in the shoulder but was released from hospital on Sunday. Mrs Beshenivsky had only completed her police constable training in February. Media play up the shootists as firing like cowboys...
Police sent to respond to this incident were unprepared...Why?
Detective Superintendent Andy Brennan told reporters that the officers drove to the Universal Express travel agency, literally minutes from the local cop-shop - after an alarm was triggered during the robbery.
Reports from Bradford say that the Travel agency arranges 'hawala' or money transactions besides tours to Pakistan and Makkah, and usually large amounts are deposited after Friday prayers for onward transmission to the Indian subcontinent. The term Hawala is just slang for wiring money. It is not necessarily illegal...
Why didn't the Police know about these large transactions? if there is an automated alarm linked to the cops from the premises, what kind of liason was there when it was installed?
Shouldn't more be done to secure 'Hawala'? Isn't that what the authorities really want? surveillance of all your assets...
New Big brother car surveillance systems were hailed but Police still look for a silver Toyota Rav 4, reg WP05 YTT, & yet no one questions how surveillance actually stops crime happening - Automated alarms cannot inform the authorities of the type of crime commited...
Predictably -
'activist group' Protect the Protectors calls for the arming of all UK police & Sir John Stevens calls for the Death Penalty
| Media show:
massive security surrounded a convoy carrying 6 suspects from London...only 3 days later ALL were released on Bail
|
|
Shooting reopens debate about arming UK police
|
Associated Press London, November 20, 2005
Police hunting for a gang of men who shot and killed an unarmed policewoman and wounded another arrested five people on Saturday in connection with the crime, officials said. The shooting in the northern city of Bradford on Friday has reignited a long-standing debate in Britain over whether front-line police officers -- the majority of whom are unarmed -- should be allowed to carry weapons. It also prompted a former senior police officer to call for the death penalty to be introduced for criminals convicted of killing officers.
|
|
The two women, both rookie officers in their 30s, were shot when they tried to tackle a gang of three men who had robbed a travel agency in Bradford city center.
Constable Sharon Beshenivsky, 38, died from a gunshot wound to the chest, despite wearing body armour. The mother of three children and two stepchildren had been a full time officer for just nine months, West Yorkshire Police said. She was killed on her youngest daughter's fourth birthday.
Her colleague, Constable Teresa Milburn, 37, received a shoulder wound and was being treated in a local hospital. Milburn, who has a 16-year-old son and joined the force in April 2004, also wore body armour. Neither were carrying firearms.
London's Metropolitan Police said its officers had arrested four men and a woman in connection with the incident. But the hunt for the three robbers, who were armed with a knife and a gun, continued. Detective Superintendent Andy Brennan told reporters that the officers drove to the Universal Express travel agency after an alarm was triggered during the robbery. One of the men opened fire on the officers as they arrived at the scene.
Fatal shootings of police officers in Britain are rare. According to the Home Office, prior to Friday's incident, only two officers have been shot and killed in the last 10 years in England and Wales, one in 1995 and one in 2003. Two female officers have been killed in the past 10 years, other than Beshenivsky. One was stabbed and one was run over by a vehicle.
The incident renewed calls for officers to be allowed to carry weapons routinely.
"The time has come for an informed debate on a ballot of officers from every force on the full-time arming of the British police service," said police officer Norman Brennan, director of the Protect the Protectors activist group. "The adage that if you arm the police more criminals will carry guns is nonsense. The police service is being outgunned on the streets of Britain day and night."
Jan Berry, chairwoman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said she doubted that arming police officers would make them safer. "Even if we armed every single police officer in this country that doesn't mean criminals aren't going to carry firearms. In fact, it could mean the reverse and more criminals are carrying firearms," she told Sky News television.
Home Office minister Hazel Blears also opposed calls for the police to be routinely armed.
- hindustan times
|
|
Compare: De Menezes dehumanized called an Illegal Immigrant
- Somali 'Terror suspect' pictured on stories reporting his shooting...
|
|
|
Big brother hailed as no one questions how surveillance actually stops crime happening
|
"It is understood that a pioneering system of car registration scanners played a key role in Saturday's arrests. Bradford was the first city in Britain to be given use of the latest auto- matic numberplate recognition (ANPR) technology. It was so successful that the Home Office has approved funding to extend its use nationally. The city is protected by a "ring of steel", 27 remote-controlled, digital spy cameras placed on the main routes into Bradford and capable of logging up to 80,000 vehicles daily.
Every registration is recorded and sent to a computer known as "Big Fish", which checks the vehicle against a national database. If the registration matches a vehicle in which the police are interested, an alarm is triggered in the control room, enabling officers to track and arrest offenders. The system is believed to have helped the Beshenivsky murder team to trace a silver car used by the armed robbers as a getaway vehicle." - timesonline
|
Former top cop calls for death penalty
Jeremy Lovell in London 21nov05
BRITAIN'S former top police commander has called for the re-introduction of the death penalty as six people were arrested over the murder of an unarmed policewoman during an armed robbery in northern England.
Sharon Beshenivsky, 38, a mother of three children and two step-children, was shot dead and her colleague Teresa Milburn, 37, was shot in the shoulder when they were called to the robbery at a travel agency on Friday afternoon.
The killing revived a heated debate over whether British police should be armed, and prompted former Metropolitan Police chief John Stevens to reverse his opinion and call for the death penalty to be brought back after 40 years.
"All my life I've been against the death penalty. But after the cold-blooded murder of policewoman Sharon Beshenivsky, I've changed my mind," Sir John wrote in the News of the World newspaper. "I genuinely never thought I'd say this, but I am now convinced that the monster who executed this young woman in cold blood should, in turn, be killed as punishment for his crime," said Sir John, who retired in January.
Britain abolished the death penalty for all crimes except treason in 1965.
"For the first time in my life, despite 40 years at the sharp end of policing, I finally see no alternative. Such an extreme act of pure evil can only be met by the most extreme of responses - and that can only be death," he said.
The killing led to calls for the country's traditionally unarmed police to carry guns on the grounds that it could have saved lives. "Even if routine arming is not correct, we do believe that the number of authorised officers remains too low," said Jan Berry, head of the Police Federation.
The government rejected such a move. Home Office Minister Hazel Blears said arming routine police officers with guns was not the way forward. ". . . to arm routine police officers with guns I don't think is the right way forward," she said.
Chief Constable Colin Cramphord, head of the West Yorkshire force for which Beshenivsky worked for just nine months, said arming police raised as many problems as it purported to solve.
"It is not a panacea. But it is an issue that we should have a public debate about," he told a news conference.
Eighty-nine police officers have been killed on duty in Britain in the past 30 years.
Reuters
|
|
Is this yet another an attempt to make a direct terrorism/asylum seeker link? WPC shooting suspects are linked to Somali gangs...remembering the OBL Somali-Militia story...Sudan Gangaweed rape allegations, and the recent Afro Asian Tensions in Birmingham...
|
Police knew...?
A BUS driver told last night how he alerted police twice about the gang who gunned down WPC Sharon Beshenivsky. Dad-of-three Shahid Khan, 31, said his second warning was delivered just one day before he was forced to help hire the Toyota vehicle now thought to be involved in the policewoman's murder. He added: "I thought the police would be waiting for me at the car hire company so they could arrest the gang." Mr Khan said he went to a police station to tell his tale after being kidnapped and made to drive the men across London. He believed his first warning - after being stopped by officers while the men were in his car - led to a police raid on a house the gang visited. Mr Khan said he had been terrorised by the gang for months. - Daily Mirror
can we believe the Daily Mirror?
Beshenivsky a Probationer officer [Jane's Police Review - 23November 2005]
|
suspect dies after balcony fall
update: On January 10th 2006West Yorkshire Police raided a house in Plumstead, South East London, looking for a suspect in connection with the shooting of Pc Sharon Beshenivsky. Allegedly the robbers who shot the Pc have links to the Somali community in the Woolwich/Plumstead area. When the police raided the house, alone inside was Nuur Saeed who was unconnected to the accused but later found outside seriously injured. It seems he fell head first from a second story balcony. He died on January 22nd from a massive brain injury. - indymedia.uk
|
|
UK mulls laws to strip citizenship of dual nationals
SATURDAY, DECEMBER 03 2005 - LONDON: New laws currently being debated in the British parliament will allow the government to strip Britons holding dual nationality of their British citizenship as part of the government's new anti-terrorism drive.
The home secretary would be able to strip dual nationals of their British citizenship as easily as he can remove or exclude foreign nationals from this country under the new legislation. The new laws may impact members of the British Indian community as the Indian government recently allowed foreign nationals of Indian origin to hold Indian citizenship. Even Britons born in the UK would be covered by the powers, included in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill as part of the government's anti-terrorism drive.
These clauses have received less public attention compared to the provisions of the Terrorism Bill, which is also being debated in parliament. The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill will receive its second reading in the House of Lords next Tuesday.
The Guardian reported on Friday that until now the home secretary was only able to act if the British citizenship of dual nationals is “seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK”: for instance, if they are spies.Under the proposed laws, he could deprive them of citizenship and the right of abode if it would be “conducive to the public good”.
“Recent developments in London have caused a rethink. The government believes the (existing) test is too restrictive,” said a Home Office spokesman.However, the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association has said there is no established principle in international law for a country expelling its own nationals.
Alison Harvey, the ILPA's legal officer, told the newspaper: “You could have your British nationality taken away from you even if your other one was meaningless to you.”Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris, who opposed the change, said:
“It is hypocritical for the government to say that people should respect the duties of citizenship and then remove it on such a low test.
“This is almost certainly in breach of human rights and will not be perceived well in ethnic minority communities, where it is most likely to apply.”Keith Vaz, former Labourite minister, told the newspaper that the bill was controversial and had not received enough parliamentary scrutiny. - economictimes.indiatimes.com
|
|
