i'm afraid it was always going to be a right-of-centre labour government,or no labour govenment at all.

This covert experiment in injustice
Blunkett's proposals for secret trials will shame the country
Gareth Peirce The Guardian Wednesday February 4, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...1140431,00.html

  In the course of 12 months, 13 years ago, more than 20 innocent Irish men and women were branded "terrorists" and convicted by English courts. That the evidence was false was known only to the accused and their accusers. For the accusers, even that clarity undoubtedly became blurred, since in their minds the means - twisting and coercing evidence - justified the ends: combating terrorism. Brutality, falsification, exaggeration of scientific evidence, concealment of prosecution evidence and of intelligence pointing in a different direction was the order of the day.

So is it possible that the Home Office is suffering from collective amnesia? What lessons should any home secretary have learnt from these terrible cases? David Blunkett, adopting the same dangerous justification of the means justifying the end, this week proposes trials based on evidence that will never see the light of day, the abolition of juries, substitution by judges, and a reversal of the burden of proof so that suspicion is enough.

The eventual revelation that so many innocent people had been buried alive in English jails was a shaming exercise for the country. Lessons, it was said then, must be learnt. And anyway, those were crude times, when investigators might have resorted to brutality.

Also in question was the ability of the judiciary to correct those injustices. But the judiciary - which Blunkett now proposes to substitute for juries where the issue is terrorism - for decades showed itself as seriously wanting. In the cases of the more than 20 innocent men and women, at least 30 senior judges had come to wrong and unjust conclusions, even where - as happened in the case of the Birmingham and Guildford appeals - they saw evidence that would have driven any jury to acquit. In the Birmingham appeal, for example, a master plan for fabrication of police interviews in the handwriting of the senior officer in charge of interrogation caused the court of appeal only to comment that they did not think that the officer had the brains to orchestrate a conspiracy.

For the Guildford defendants, extraordinary evidence was put before their appeal court. Members of the IRA who had, in fact, carried out the bombings for which the four young defendants had been convicted were prepared to provide compelling detail of their role. Instead of quashing the convictions, the court of appeal returned the four innocent defendants to prison for another 13 years.

There were only two honourable exceptions, seen as critical in guarding against future injustice. The court of appeal, considering the case of Judith Ward, by then imprisoned for more than 18 years, thundered that it would not permit "trial by ambush" in this country. What the prosecution knew, the defence should know.

Equally authoritatively came the voice of Lord Devlin, who saw with a clear eye that juries - constitutionally the arbiters of fact - could not find a substitute in the judiciary. When judges attempted, as happened in appeal after appeal, to consider fresh evidence as if they were a jury, they were committing a constitutional sin in addition to the fact that they then went on to demonstrate grotesque incomprehension of the evidence on which they were commenting.

Those voicing concerns about these new proposals should be aware that they are the second part of an experiment that has been ongoing for the past two years, largely without protest. A number of men, all foreign nationals, have been locked up indefinitely without trial on the basis of the suspicion only of the home secretary that they have links with terrorism.

The suggestion that I and other lawyers are representing them is in itself a travesty; neither they nor we know the evidence against them. We know only that it is claimed to be in large part based upon "intelligence", and this is why - it is argued - the men cannot be prosecuted in a trial with mandatory safeguards before the only tribunal of fact allowed to consider criminal offences in this country: a jury.

What is "intelligence" and why does it ask to be heard in secret? In particular, what is likely to be the source of intelligence that relates to refugees from regimes known to practice torture as their interrogative method of choice? Defence lawyers who represent members of Muslim refugee communities in this country know, on the basis of almost daily reports, that the security services have been pressing for information through methods likely to produce unreliable testimony - offering regularised immigration status as the carrot, and return to the countries from which those individuals have fled as the stick.

Exposed to scrutiny, the falsity of informant evidence can be exploded. But secure in the knowledge that neither the identity nor the content of the information will ever be known to the accused or to the public, not only the informant but the accuser remains safe in the security of secrecy. As far as the regimes are concerned from which those refugees have fled, we know with sickening certainty, that there is now two-way traffic between our intelligence services and theirs to exchange "intelligence".

While our government publicly sheds crocodile tears for the British detainees in Guantanamo Bay, it has emerged only recently that British intelligence agents have been there, and in Afghanistan's Bagram airbase, interrogating those detainees. This country has been wholly complicit in obtaining the product of sustained interrogation in the absence of any safeguards of due process. Then, very deliberately, it has been putting it to use in our own secret hearings. So far these have been confined to foreign nationals, and have stirred scarcely a breath of protest. Now the home secretary says he wishes to extend secret hearings to all those accused of the mere suspicion of terrorism, even though short of evidence that could be proved beyond reasonable doubt in a public trial before a jury.

We should not be deceived. What is happening in Guantanamo; what is happening in the secret hearings with foreign nationals already taking place in this country; and what is proposed for the future, is in the nature of an ongoing experiment. This is the pooling of access to internationally condemned methods of investigation. Since their utilisation will be covert, the overt experiment is into how willing the public of this country and those concerned in the passage of legislation are to allow basic safeguards to be jettisoned without protest. The lack of protest over the imprisonment of innocent men and women in 1974 is a badge of shame for this country. The confidence with which this home secretary can express so unchecked an appetite for further powers that violate every international minimum norm is in itself a further badge of shame that hardly needs legislation to compound it. For this time, unlike those convicted in 1974, the men and women detained or convicted now will never have the possibility of knowing, let alone undoing, the false testimony that has buried them alive.
· Gareth Peirce is a solicitor representing detainees under the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 

Hutton 'clear, forensic and comprehensive'
Tony Blair told MPs yesterday that Lord Hutton's report into the death of scientist Dr David Kelly was "'clear, forensic and comprehensive". He was opening a debate on the report in the House of Commons. Statement: http://www.labour.org.uk/tbhutton

But the fundamental here is that the father or mother who has moved away from the family does not in that action of moving away then sever all of their ties.

The government last year floated the idea of tagging parents who failed to comply with child access orders, but the suggestion was soon discarded.

and it is centre left after all

I marched against the IRAQ war and its the big dissapointment for me really but look at how many people have voted in Iraq recently and that the rights of women are constitutionally protected and the Kurdish community are glad while people like you and me were against the majority of the Iraqi people seem pleased with there new freedoms.

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Maha al-Douri took a radical stance when she decided to run for a seat in the Iraqi Parliament in December: The 36-year-old candidate on a minor Shiite Muslim slate put her face on campaign posters — and succeeded in raising eyebrows around the country.

"I got threats," said al-Douri. "I am the first (female) candidate to talk about women's rights. The political parties list women as candidates, but they want to waste the woman's voice. Where is the secularity and democracy we hear about? Are they only slogans?"

She's hardly alone in wondering what the future holds for women seeking political power in Iraq. Al-Douri, who studied politics and journalism for a doctoral degree, notes that any woman getting involved must be brave enough to risk enormous social pressure and to face tremendous practical obstacles.

The official line from the government and many politicians is that women are welcome to participate. The constitution, which voters ratified in October, even guarantees women equal rights in society and a quarter of the seats in Parliament.

"We seek a real role for women, not a marginal one," said Haider al-Abadi, a prominent member of Iraq's largest political coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance, a Shiite group. "Society has now accepted women in the political field. … We are keen for women to hold leading positions in the government."

During Saddam Hussein's 25-year reign, women did have a few opportunities to play important roles in government or elsewhere in society, but only as long as they complied with Saddam's demands to serve him and the ruling Baath party. Women had the right to vote, for instance, but like all Iraqis could vote only for Saddam.

FRETTING IRAQ'S DIRECTION

Yet for all the talk of shedding a history of female repression and establishing a nation in which a woman's voice matters as much as a man's, signs that the government is becoming more Islamist worry champions of women's rights.

Proponents of Islam in government note that the religion explicitly values women, including by cherishing their contributions to family, home and society. Yet others fear that a conservative Islamic government would bar women from voting, moving or even studying independently of their fathers, husbands or brothers.

Already there've been numerous reports of husbands casting votes in their wives' names and of fathers voting for their daughters. Before October's constitutional referendum, in conservative areas campaign posters showing a woman's face — symbolizing the face of a new Iraq — were ripped from walls or painted over and denounced as shameful.

In the December parliamentary elections, security concerns prompted candidate Huda al-Nu'aimi to decide at the last minute not to display any of her campaign posters, including those featuring her face. Like other female candidates, some of whom were even afraid to appear in public, al-Nu'aimi feared that she'd be a target.

"I did not dare to be pursued by militias or organized criminal groups. I did not want my posters to be torn or covered in bad words," said al-Nu'aimi, a candidate of the Iraqi National Dialogue Front, a major secular Sunni Muslim slate. "Here, the man is still the master."

Like many Iraqis who are worried about the direction their nation will take, Aseel Ayad wants women to have a stronger role in politics. The 23-year-old, who works in her family's Baghdad optical shop, thinks it's important that the new government's promises of gender equality — the right to work, vote and participate fully in society — don't vanish.

"As a woman, I feel I need women in office to help me achieve my goals," she said. "So far we have seen nothing in the past elections. Women have been represented in the slates, but only to fill a space, and they haven't been valued."

While some political groups did just that, others sought to fill the spaces on their slates that were constitutionally reserved for women with bona fide candidates, said Hussein al-Musawi of the Sun of Iraq, the minor Shiite slate that included al-Douri. It will take time for Iraq to embrace a political system that's open to women and for women to seize the opportunity, he said.

"This is a golden chance for women," al-Musawi said. "They must exploit it in the best way they can and improve their role in society in these years, so in the next round of elections women will be able to raise their percentage" in Parliament.

ADVOCATING CAUTION

Not everyone is eager for women's rights to top the government's agenda.

Mays Hussam, 34, an office manager in Baghdad, said the nation had more pressing issues, including the epidemic violence that kills Iraqis daily and the chronic electricity shortage. Only after Iraq's basic needs are met should the government take on more, she said.

"I don't want something for my gender," she said. "All I care about now is security and a healthy environment for my son. Once we're safer, I hope women will defend our rights."

Political analyst Hazim Ali of Jadriyah University said that security fears, however, weren't necessarily driving the movements to exclude women from politics.

Some extremist clerics may be taking advantage of troubled times to keep women in traditional roles, he said.

"Politics here is a male thing," Ali said. "I consider it two-faced: We say we accept women's role in politics, but we do not believe in them."

Azhar al-Sheikhli, the minister for women's affairs, said that too often women were regarded as simple-minded, unable to handle the rough-and-tumble political world. Strong laws are needed to guarantee women's rights, and new generations must be taught that women have much to give to Iraq, she said.

"The heads of our political lists realize they don't need women at the top of their lists to succeed, so they figure, 'Why risk it?' " she said. "We hope that will change with time."

The final votes must still be counted in Iraq, but the trend is already clear. The biggest winners appear to be the Shiite religious parties whose politicians have run the ministries and whose militias have run the streets of southeastern Iraq for a year or more. The Kurdish separatist parties that supported this arrangement in exchange for absolute control of the Kurdish northeast also appear to have fared well.

Sunni Arabs did a lot better than they did last January, when most boycotted the polls. But political fragmentation left them with fewer seats than they expected. In a further blow, a court ruled last week that at least 90 candidates, most of them Sunni, could not serve if elected because of their Baath Party ties. Still, the biggest losers were secular parties and those who tried to appeal to all of Iraq's communities, not just one religion or ethnic group.

Anyone who hoped that Iraq's broadest exercise in electoral democracy so far might strengthen women's rights, secular protections or national unity will be disappointed. But anyone who expected such gains cannot have been paying attention to recent developments in Iraq.

Iraqi politics are settling into an unsettling pattern. Very few people vote as Iraqis; most vote as Shiites, Sunnis or Kurds. It is progress that Sunni Arabs turned out in large numbers, but that may not be enough to assure them a meaningful role in reshaping a dangerously divisive constitution and forming a broad-based government. If the Shiite parties can keep the support of their Kurdish allies and pick up a few independents, they may be able to assemble a two-thirds majority without Sunni participation and resist the changes Iraq badly needs.

That would be a disastrous choice, foreclosing the possibility of containing the insurgency through political means and dimming the prospects for Iraq's survival as a stable, unified state. But it's a disaster that could be avoided if the victorious parties summoned the sense to reach out to a Sunni Arab community that now has one foot in the political process and the other in the insurgency.

The strong vote for the Shiite religious parties does not necessarily mean that Iraqis have abruptly turned fundamentalist. What it does prove is that the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI, and the Dawa Islamic Party have out- organized, outfought and outmaneuvered rival parties in the Shiite- majority provinces. These two parties enjoyed multiple advantages, including decades of help from Iran, inclusion by the American occupation authorities in the appointive Governing Council, the strong endorsement of Iraq's leading Shiite ayatollah and backing from intimidating armed party militias.

Their main secular rivals, Ayad Allawi and Ahmad Chalabi, showed few political skills and came with baggage. Allawi, Washington's latest favorite, made more enemies than friends when he served last year as interim prime minister. Chalabi, the earlier American protege, was distrusted by fellow Shiites because of his ceaseless scheming and loathed by Sunnis for his campaign against anyone even remotely connected to the old Baath Party.

Working class people are overwhelmingly the victims of crime and it's they who will be protected by CCTV and DNA testing, thats why ASBO's are so popular with the man and woman in the street and in the modern Labour Party.

I afraid many people will only ever be concerned about the rights of the individual (even more so, if they are criminals,nonces,or terrorists).They do not care about the rights of the 'people' as a whole.They do not care about the rights of the decent law-abiding 'majority',and their right to live free from fear and harrassment.

To these people the only enermy is The Establishment and Authority,and their only friend is the peceived downtrodden.The rest of the population(the majority) can go jump, as far as they are concerned.

I am not aware of any correlation between increased CCTV use and reduced crime (but would be interested to see any).

My concern is the abuse of the system

Who remembers the incident where a teenage girl was assualted by a man late at night in a city centre. He was tracked from camera to camera,and police were directed to the incident.If your children were going out into city centres late at night.would you not want any assault on them to be monitored and for the police to be kept in touch with the offenders movements ,so they they can apprehend him.

You failed to answer my question,Barmy.If your teenage daughter was going out for a night in Town.Would you not feel safer in the fact that the Town in question had CCTV in operation and trained staff monitoring the welfare of people on the street and instructing police to any crime that may be occuring?

I see the twins that were convicted today of killing their own grandmother, were caught because of CCTV evidence showing them trying to use her out of date bank notes in two seperate shops..

Rather than relying on CCTV camera's to protect my teenage daughter

You failed to answer my question,Barmy.If your teenage daughter was going out for a night in Town.Would you not feel safer in the fact that the Town in question had CCTV in operation and trained staff monitoring the welfare of people on the street and instructing police to any crime that may be occuring?

CCTV staff 'spied on naked woman'
Two council workers used CCTV cameras to spy on a woman as she undressed for a bath, a court has heard.
The men were themselves caught on a camera monitoring Sefton Council's CCTV control room, a jury at Liverpool Crown Court was told.

Kevin Judge, 42, of Crosby, Merseyside, and David Welsh, 40, of Anfield, Liverpool deny charges of voyeurism.

Mr Judge and Mr Welsh were recorded playing back the video of the woman, the court heard.

So because good things can be abused,you would not have them at all ?

Does that include home computers,that some people use to peddle child pornography.Or telephones that some people use to make crank calls??

The answer to the question is no.

Even if CCTV's ONLY use is to record crime,that should be enough reason to support it.And that in itself far outweights any arguements against.

The answer to the question is no.

I do understand now why it took a British man to write '1984'. This place is wired UP. Head to toe, and individual rights be damned. So it's an issue I'm interested in. I used to find it quite intimidating, the cameras on every damn street corner. Now I don't even notice them.

over promoted graduates

For all it's whackos, religious fundementalists, the NRA and neo con administration the US of A seems like a much better place to be living especially after 2020.