Snooper's Charter - The Figures Are In

I read this on the way to work this morning, but I've linked to the BBC coverage and the Daily Mirror's "exclusive" as there are a couple of interesting differences in the information reported.

While the BBC does indeed mention that "councils in England and Wales have used controversial spying laws 10,000 times in the past five years" the Mirror goes on to break down the figures.

(Remember, these are the offences that COVERT operations were used to target. And covert operations are costly, which is something you might want to remember when your new Council Tax bill comes through.)

Benefit fraud, 1780 times. Anti-social behaviour, 696 times. Theft, 79 times. Noise nuisance, 942 times. Dog fouling, 88 times. Fly tipping, 451 times. Criminal damage/graffiti, 127 times. Unauthorised taxis, 138 times. Trading standards, 734 times.

You'll note - although the BBC completely fails to mention it - that none of the reasons the RIP Act has been used for by councils has been terrorist related. Which is a bit of a worry, as the Government specifically introduced this Act so that terrorist suspects could be covertly watched, rather than joe public. I suppose the BBC are ignoring this point as it would suggest (correctly) the Government haven't thought this law through properly (again).

You may also be interested to note that just nine per cent of the surveillance operations led to a successful prosecution, caution or fixed-penalty notice. Nine whole percent. Wow. However will our prison system cope?

Even more worryingly, 1,615 council staff have the power to authorise the use of RIP Act, but 21% (or 340) of these staff are below senior management grade. Yep, 340 junior staff can have you followed, covertly filmed and thoroughly investigated for something as trivial as not realising your dog has taken a dump (and therefore not cleaning it up) or over filling your bin (because you're not allowed to have a bonfire in your back garden any more).

Ladies and gentlemen of the UK, refuse to pay your Council Tax. The council may try to take you to court, but if everyone refuses, then there's not going to be anywhere they can put everyone, is there?

Anti-Terror Training Takes Three Hours (Including Coffee Break)

From SpyBlog comes an interesting (if you happen to be a paranoid geek like wot I am) analysis of the weekend's announcements from the Government.

Apparently - and I'm sure I can't imagine why - the UK is now at a severe risk of terrorist attack. So in order to stop these terrorists, "Tens of thousands of men and women throughout Britain - from security guards to store managers - have now been trained and equipped to deal with an incident and know what to watch for as people go about their daily business in crowded places such as stations, airports, shopping centres and sports grounds." That quote is from the Prime Mentalist himself writing in Sunday's Observer.

Jackboot Smith confirmed the Brown Gorgon's words on the BBC's Politics Show on Sunday, saying "What we're completely clear about is that if we're going to address the threat from terrorism, we need to do that alongside the 60,000 people that we're now training up to respond to a terrorist threat, in everywhere from our shopping centres to our hotels."

So, you may think that this training would be extremely detailed, involve long hours and probably some sort of exam at the end?

You would be, sadly, quite wrong.

"Project ARGUS is a National Counter Terrorism Security Office initiative, exploring ways to aid you in preventing, handling and recovering from a terrorist attack...

Project Argus is a free event which takes you through, using a multi-media simulation, a terrorist attack. A series of questions and challenges are put to you, both individually and as a group. You will work in small syndicate groups with other local business representatives and develop your responses to the attack. The whole event including a coffee break will last three hours."

Security theatre at its very best. Completely pointless, does more harm than good, and is likely to lead to huge numbers of innocent people being harassed by jumped up little jobsworths who think they're in MI5.

This Government is the reason we're at increased risk of terrorist attacks.

I am the Revolution, I am a terrorist, and I'm taking this fucking country back.

Frankly, I'm Fucked Then

Hat-tip to Dizzy (via his Twitter feed) for this excellent piece of trawling. From the Communications Act (2003), Part 2, Chapter 21, point 127:

Improper use of public electronic communications network

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b) causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

(2) A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—

(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b) causes such a message to be sent; or
(c) persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).

So essentially, pretty much anything that the Government finds on the internet, or on an email, they consider to be obscene, menacing or untrue can cause the poster/sender to spend up to 6 months in jail.

Which is a nice way of silencing critics, isn't it?

It's been said before, but it needs saying again: 1984 was NOT a fucking instruction manual, you bunch of cunts.

Is It Possible?

I'm not a one for physics, but could someone please tell me if it's possible to use someone - say Hazel Blears - as a weapon to attack someone else - say Jacqui Smith - and that they would both end up dead?

I suspect that if I was to pick Blears (also known as "Bleats", and, my personal favourite, "Ginger Haze") up by her legs and swing her around my head (as one would in the Olympic Hammer event) and walk towards Smith to get their heads to connect at great speed, then I should achieve my aim. If anyone has any improvements to this plan that don't involve conventional weaponry or piano wire, use the comments section below. If anyone has any objections, please address them to \dev\null\ or just fuck off.

My ire, you see, has been raised by both these demented women in the space of just 24 hours. Smith for the reasons outlined in the post below (oh, and then claiming that people come up to her "all the time" asking her why they can't have an ID Card now - you want to watch out for those people Jacqui, they're obviously mental). Blears for the comments I read regarding bloggers that I shall outline here.

In a closed meeting, Blears gave a speech - ironically in a meeting about political disengagement - which said that corrosive cynicism, fueled by politically nihilistic blogs and a retreat from dispassionate reporting, is endangering British political discourse and fueling growing political disengagement in Britain.

And that "in recent years commentary has taken over from investigation or news reporting, to the point where commentators are viewed by some as every bit as important as elected politicians, with views as valid as cabinet ministers."

Yes, you did read that correctly. Blears is suggesting that the comments of the general populace of this country shouldn't be viewed as being as important as the delusional wittering of a cabinet minister. That would be the population who votes for the politicians who then go on to become said cabinet ministers, by the way, in case you had forgotten. Said by a woman who has never had a proper job her entire life.

It gets better. Or worse, depending on your cynicism levels.

"Unless and until political blogging adds value to our political culture, by allowing new and disparate voices, ideas and legitimate protest and challenge, and until the mainstream media reports politics in a calmer, more responsible manner, it will continue to fuel a culture of cynicism and despair."

So it's the fault of bloggers that a large percentage of people in this country think politicians are greedy, lying, grasping cunts with no idea - or concern - how their decisions affect real people?

Oh really? I was under the impression that politicians being paid a fucking fortune to do fuck all besides rubber stamp "initiatives" from the EU while simultaneously stuffing their own pockets with "expenses" (despite working in a building with a subsidised bar - where you can still smoke - and restaurant) and looking forward to the best pension scheme in the fucking country, might have caused some of the cynicism love, but that's just me, I guess.

And just how, exactly, do you propose getting "more disparate voices" involved in political blogging, you short chipmunk-faced bint? Political bloggers aren't elected, the popular ones are popular because they report stuff people are interested in. They aren't necessarily sponsored or rich, they're just people who want to complain or praise politicians. The fact more people complain - and more people are interested in the ones who complain - surely suggests there's something going wrong at your end, rather than at ours.

It's not as if there's any way of stopping people setting up a blog and ranting. Oh wait, that's your fucking proposal, isn't it? Funnily enough, something the EU proposed earlier this year, a licence for bloggers.

So to get more "people" (and by that I'm taking that you mean "more people who agree with you") involved in political blogging, you're proposing to introduce lengthy bureaucratic paperwork requiring full disclosure of personal details, and then a fee. A fee which would therefore reduce the number of people blogging? Or a fee you would waive if the person applying agreed with your policies?

But how would you stop people from just blogging anyway? Oh, I see you're proposing to take control of Nominet. So anyone with a .uk domain name could be instantly taken offline (and presumably shot) by the government? Sounds remarkably like state censorship, that, or something North Korea would do.

You are a cunt, Blears, a cunt of the highest proportion. I shall batter Smith to death using you as a mace and I shall be happy, covered in the blood and bone of the pair of you, grinning like a fucking loon. Then I will go after the one eyed son of a manse, and force him to eat the shit that comes out of the corpses of both Smith and Blears. When he is sated - or I've decided he is - I'll cleave his fucking head with a hatchet.

I am the Revolution, keep the fucking country, I'm leaving.

BBC Having A Laugh, Again

The BBC initially headlined that today's report by the Charity Commission into the Smith Institute had cleared them of too many connections to the Labour Party. Bloomberg had a slightly different slant on that report. The BBC have now amended the headline, probably because the original one wasn't entirely true. And you wonder why some people think the BBC is a bit biased towards Labour...

Now, on the Magazine page, there's an article saying that there are "Reasons to be Cheerful" in the current economic climate.

1. HOUSE PRICES ARE UP
2. EMPLOYMENT RATE IS HIGH
3. INFLATION HAS FALLEN
4. LOWER EARNINGS ARE GOOD
5. WE'RE LIVING LONGER

I have responded to said article with the following:

Good grief, was this written for you by a Government minister?

The elderly are getting wealthier are they? I'm sure the many pensioners in fuel poverty would be delighted to hear that. As well as the ones unable to pay the ever-increasing Council Tax.

The employment figures quoted are from May and obviously won't take into account the people made redundant in the building industry over what is normally their busiest times.

The RPI isn't weighted very well and puts too much emphasis on consumer electronics (not regular purchases) when the more major increases have taken place on food and fuel. Consumer electronics have always come down in price over time. Also how can it go down if house prices are still going up as you contend in the first point?

While there has been some over stating of the downturn in the economy, this article is diabolical.

Although I wish I'd asked them how tractor production was going. Or the war with Eurasia, come to that.

Fucking bastards.

Thought Crime 2008

I know I'm coming to this a bit late, but I felt certain that there was no way it could progress as far as it has without someone seeing a bit of common sense. I am naive sometimes.

But first, a bit of background.

On May 16th a non Academic staff member at one of Nottingham's universities was arrested by the police. His "crime" was downloading and printing a document from the internet, for a friend of his in the Politics faculty. This document was the 'Manchester Manual' (so named because of where it was originally discovered), also known as the 'Manual of Afghan Jihad' or 'Military Studies in the Jihad [Holy War] Against the Tyrants'. To the Americans, it is known simply as the 'al Qaeda manual'.

"So," you may be thinking to yourself, "some miscreant has downloaded this for nefarious reasons from some pro-jihad website and has been caught. Good!" Well, if you are, just hold on a second. Let's have a look at which pro-jihad website the document came from, shall we?

That would be that well known sponsor of terrorism, the US Department of Justice. The document (split into four parts) is available for download here, here, here, and here. And I would heartily recommend that you do download it, if only to see if mass arrests follow. Oh, and to laugh at the phrase "undercover brother" - that reminded me of some kinda blaxploitation film.

The 'Manchester Manual' was originally obtained in April 2000 by British anti-terrorism agents and subsequently turned over to the FBI's Nanette Schumaker later that same month. It was originally the property of Nazib al Raghie (also known as Anas Al Liby to the US government) who was the equivalent of an old pensioner from the Afghan war living in retirement in Britain. At the time the manual was confiscated during a counter-terror recce operation, UK authorities were not interested in him. Neither, apparently, was the FBI and he was not arrested. Not unexpectedly, he then disappeared.

During the London ricin trial (where there was no ricin, and no crime) the defense considered the American government's description of it as "the al Qaeda manual" a manufactured title (see fourth paragraph from the end). Nowhere within the document is al Qaeda mentioned and it seems to have possibly originated in the last years of the Islamist resistance of the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan. But from time to time the Manchester manual has been used by the US government to make political points.

As part of Bush's justification for the fight on terror, whitehouse.gov links (third link under third sub-heading) to a display page for the manual at the Air University, Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base in Alabama (which seems to have gone down, probably due to the number of people trying to see what was downloaded). This page was a mirror of the John Ashcroft Department of Justice's old placeholder on the book; one which had been taken down although copies of the material still reside on its machine - and were the links given earlier.

So why did the University authorities decide not to investigate, but instead to pass the matter on to the Police? The only real grounds they had for suspecting anything to be amiss was the downloading of a book. A book which is, as I've just shown, linked to by the White House website, and available from Department of Justice servers. And a book which would be, along with similar 'manuals' from the IRA, the Nazis or the Shining Path, be a worthy document for discussion in a PhD.

Under Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000, a person commits an offence if they "possesses a document or record containing information"..."of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". The stunning vagueness of this sentence was focused dramatically in February of this year, when the Court of Appeal ruled that simple possession could not be enough for a conviction. There had to be demonstrable intent to commit terrorist acts as well.

The Times Higher Education Supplement reported on May 29 that the main accused was using the manual "as preparation for a PhD on radical Islamic groups [and] had downloaded an edited version of the al-Qaeda handbook from a site he found via Google... It is understood that [he] sent the 1,500-page document to the staff member... because he had access to a printer."

Not really a very good terrorist there, is he? Getting someone else to print the document for you, and then having the temerity to turn up and present yourself as being the person who downloaded it once the police arrived to investigate the person you'd sent it to. Your reward is potential deportation. Have a biscuit.

What the fuck is going on in this country when reading a public document - hosted by the US DOJ, ffs - constitutes a potential criminal act? I know I have invoked Godwin's Law previously by comparing Labour to the Nazis, but while the Nazis burned books, Labour seems intent on stopping anyone from discovering anything that would negate the bullshit they feed us in order to justify the removal of our civil liberties.

Fuck the Government before they fuck you. Join the Revolution.

I am the Revolution, and if there's anything left, I'd like my fucking country back.

Goodbye Freedom, Hello Gitmo

Gordon Brown will be pushing ahead today to inflict another blow on liberty. He plans to increase the amount of time someone can be held without trial to 42 days, from the already excessive 28 days it currently is. This measure is being introduced as part of the Counter-Terrorism Bill which does have some sensible parts, but could so easily see function shift - like the recent RIP Act abuses - into non-terrorist areas.

Britain already has one of the longest periods of detention without trial in the West. As you may be able to see from the picture below, Canada has one day, the US two, Russia five, France six, Ireland seven and Turkey seven and a half.


There are, as Liberty suggest, alternatives to extending the period.

Remove the bar on the use of intercept (phone tap) evidence because its inadmissibility is a major factor in being unable to bring charges in terror cases. Liberty welcomes the Government’s proposed Privy Council review into the use of this evidence in terror trials.

Allow post-charge questioning in terror cases, provided that the initial charge is legitimate and there is judicial oversight. This will allow for a charge to be replaced with a more appropriate offence at a later stage.

Hire more interpreters: Prioritise the hiring of more foreign language interpreters to expedite pre-charge questioning and other procedures.

Add resources: More resources for police and intelligence services.

Liberty has pointed out that emergency measures which exist under the Civil Contingencies Act (2004) would allow the government to temporarily extend pre-charge detention in a genuine emergency where the police are overwhelmed by multiple terror plots. These powers would be subject to parliamentary and judicial oversight, something which is not guaranteed under the legislation about to go before Parliament.

Liberty also believes that even such an extreme measure would be preferable to creating a permanent state of emergency. Which does seem to be the direction in which the government are heading. A direction the US has already headed, and look how successful that is. Oh, and by the way, there's no need to call a General Election if the country is in a state of emergency. Handy if you happen to be trailing in the polls by a significant amount, eh Gordon?

To put the detention issue into perspective, here's a very interesting piece from The Economist magazine from October 2007. You'll note in the sixth paragraph:

"Britain likewise suspended habeas corpus in the second world war to allow it to detain around 1,000 suspected fascists. All were released after three years. During the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland in the early 1970s, nearly 2,000 suspected extremists were interned. But the practice was scrapped in 1975, as it was clearly fuelling support for terrorism — just as Guantánamo is doing now."

The removal of habeas corpus - freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention, coupled with the right to challenge it in an independent court - is unnecessary. We have legislation in place that would allow any genuine terrorist suspects to be held longer than the current 28 day period anyway. With the removal of other pieces of restrictive police legislation, investigations wouldn't need to take longer than 28 days, plus evidence gathered by wiretap would be admissable. By increasing the length of detention without trial, the Government are actually encouraging terrorism - as happened in Northern Ireland - and restricting the liberty of British citizens.

UPDATE: There is an excellent dissection of this over at SpyBlog

This is a disgrace. We can end it.

I am the Revolution and I want my fucking country back.

1984 Still Not Instruction Manual

In a completely unexpected move, Home Office staffers have suggested that the UK Government need to keep a complete log of all emails and phone calls. Obviously they claim this will help deal with terrorists, because terrorism is the catch all excuse du jour for such eye watering stupidity.

The Government - who have a fantastic track record in losing data - are proposing that they should have control over this FUCKING ENORMOUS database of information. And that somehow, magically, it won't be hacked, lost, sold or used for purposes other than what you're currently being told. Because I can't imagine any junior staffer who has access - and remember, under the RIP Act pretty much every jobsworth cunt up and down the country will have access - not just having a look to see who has been contacting who.

The BBC article states that MPs haven't seen the proposals yet, handily, nor says how long the data will be kept for, but there are already objections to the plan. The Assistant Information Commissioner, Jon Bamford said:

"We are not aware of any justification for the state to hold every UK citizen's phone and internet records. We have real doubts that such a measure can be justified, or is proportionate or desirable."

Or plausible. From an IT point of view it is just unbelievable. Do-able, yes. Expensive, you bet your sweet ass. Likely to happen in a given timeframe to exacting demands of the IC? No hope in hell. As the Slashdot tag for their article suggests, goodluckwiththat. So if this does come to pass, it'll be an exceptionally costly sieve through which all your personal data will fall like water into the hands of anyone who happens to want it.

When exactly did my private communications become the property of the Government? Did I miss that fucking announcement? I will - if this becomes law - set up a spam mailer on any number of open relays (quite often Government ones) telling all and sundry about my intention to blow up numerous Government buildings. Encrypted. In Arabic.

I am the Revolution and I want my fucking country back now, you disingenuous cunts.

I Am Not A Stoner

But if I was, I think I would be more than a little angry at the Government. Firstly, they have decided to completely ignore a report into the effects of cannabis that they themselves commissioned, and reclassify cannabis as Class B. The opening paragraph of the report reads:

Dear Home Secretary In July 2007 you asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to review the classification of cannabis in the light of real public concern about the potential mental health effects of cannabis use and, in particular, the use of stronger strains of the drug. I have pleasure in enclosing the Council’s report. You will note that, after a most careful scrutiny of the totality of the available evidence, the majority of the Council’s members consider – based on its harmfulness to individuals and society – that cannabis should remain a Class C substance. It is judged that the harmfulness of cannabis more closely equates with other Class C substances than with those currently classified as Class B.

As Tim Worstall quite rightly points out in the article I mention below, "There doesn't seem to be much point in reading any more of that report, nor paying attention to it - since, obviously, no other fucker has either."

Funnily enough there's not been so much reporting of the other stats mentioned in the report. Except for this wonderful article in The Register. Yes, the IT crowd's favourite read (possibly bar Slashdot) and generally only interested in all things geek. They have, over the past couple of years, been increasing the politics angle (mainly related to issues of security lapses, privacy and ID cards), but this seems a step into a different area.

The article is quite compelling, with some lovely use of statistics. Like the fact cannabis use has fallen over the past ten years, the number of people admitted with schizophrenia has also fallen, and that the oft quoted stat that today's cannabis is 20 times stronger than that of 20 years ago is just plain wrong.

The second page of the article, however, has some worrying information.

Police will be able to seize high-value assets from suspected drug dealers as soon as they are arrested under plans to be unveiled this week by Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary.

As Worstal says, "Yes, they'll take your house, your cars, your bank accounts, anything with a realisable value, at the moment of your arrest. No court case necessary at all, simply forfeiture to the State on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. Even better, they won't leave you with enough money to hire a lawyer to defend yourself on those drugs charges"

More than 30 barristers from London, Leeds and Sheffield were approached to represent the offender, but refused because they felt the new fixed-rate legal aid fees of £175.25 per day does not justify the complex workload that would be involved. The case would have involved 6,586 pages of documents and a total of 4,548 transactions to prepare for an estimated six-week hearing. The offender, who has served a nine-month sentence for two drugs convictions, could not pay for the legal fees himself because his assets had been frozen.

Worstall continues: "That pretty much puts paid to the idea of innocent until proven guilty, the right to a fair trial and all the rest of that gubbins that our forefathers fought and died for, doesn't it? That's what I'm worried about, the leeching away of the very things that make us a free country in the face of this mass hysteria. It's decades since I last felt the urge to indulge beyond alcohol and nicotine, so the specifics of the drugs laws are an academic issue for me. But the abandonment of even the pretence of a fair trial should worry you as much as it does me."

I am the Revolution, and I want my fucking country back.

Thought Crime

In its attempt to make 1984 look like a fucking instruction manual, the Labour government are now introducing a new piece of legislation which has been derided in Parliament for making thought illegal.

Lib Dem peer Baroness Miller said the evidence linking pornography with violence was weak and that the new rules would be out of kilter with the Obscene Publications Act. In her speech, the Baroness commented that "the Minister is in danger of leading his Government into becoming the thought police... we do not have any evidence to justify an intrusion in people's lives".

Further, "the Government's contention is that by viewing it [extreme porn] people are more likely to commit violent offences. Therefore, they justify walking into people's bedrooms and turning them into criminals simply for viewing something."

The legislation was also attacked by Labour peers. Lord McIntosh of Haringey added: "What does it matter to the Government whether what we have in our homes for our own purposes is for sexual arousal or not? What is wrong with sexual arousal anyway? That is not a matter for Parliament or government to be concerned about."

Here is the Register's take on it: "If you use the internet for any purpose that might be construed as other than respectable – be afraid. Be very afraid."

Even the normally American-focused Slashdot have been disturbed about this move: "Massive surveillance? Check. Building a DNA database? Check. Laws against thought crime? Not yet, but coming very soon."

The BBC - an erstwhile institution not normally likely to mention pornography, let alone on it's front news page - has this to say: "Many fear it has been rushed through and will criminalise innocent people with a harmless taste for unconventional sex."

I say only this: I am the revolution & I'd like my fucking country back.

Function Creep And The Congestion Zone

Quite spectacular information from SpyBlog about the way the data gained from the Congestion Zone and Low Emission Zone Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras, plus CCTV cameras can be - and let's face it, probably has been - sent to the US for their "law enforcement agencies" (read NSA, CIA, FBI).

The particular bit of note is this:

"A spokesman for Richard Thomas, the information commissioner, confirmed that the certificate* had been worded so that the images of private cars, as well as registration numbers, could be sent outside to countries such as the USA."

And as the system is live 24hrs a day, the US could - right now - be watching images of your car/van/motorbike. Despite you having done nothing. Oh, and these images could be held for up to five years. Despite you still not having done anything illegal.

* - The certificate (signed by the Home Secretary on July 4 2007) specifically sets out the level of data that can be sent to enforcement authorities outside the European Economic Area (the EU plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) by anti-terrorist officers from the Metropolitan Police. It says: "The certificate relates to the processing of the images taken by the camera, personal data derived from the images, including vehicle registration mark, date, time and camera location."

Well You've Convinced Me

The BBC are reporting on the trial of an alleged head of a terrorist cell. If you bother clicking the link, the headline is

"Suspect 'checked air timetables'"

Fuck me, he's obviously guilty then, the shifty looking cunt! What other heinous crimes was he committing?

Woolwich Crown Court heard he also talked "in hushed tones" on his mobile.

Makes a pleasant change, someone actually talking quietly while on their mobile in a public place - this bloke should be stuffed and mounted. I wonder what exactly made this behaviour so suspicious?

Prosecutor Richard Whittam said Mr Ali was observed speaking in "hushed tones in a foreign language" on a mobile phone.

That would be Mr Abdulla Ahmed Ali. I'm guessing here that English may not be his first language. If it is, there's a good chance it wasn't the first language of the person he was speaking to.

Mr Ali was then seen looking at an American Airlines page marked "timetable notepad". He then highlighted sections of numbers on the screen. Mr Ali was seen looking at the BAA Heathrow website showing "some sort" of timetable, before visiting a flight-booking website.

Blimey, I can't imagine a scenario where I would need to do that. Apart from booking flights and seeing which flights I wanted to take, obviously. He's blatantly a bomber! We should just hang the fucker now.

It gets better though.

The court also heard how on the same day, co-defendant Assad Sarwar, who was described as the group's "quartermaster", visited an internet cafe in Slough. He was observed as he wrote an email and then made notes as he looked up internet sites related to hydroponics - the process of growing plants without soil. He also looked up information on plant growing and feeding.

Hydroponics? Bomb making! Or growing weed. One or the other. But probably bombs.

In case you're interested, these are the idiots who, it is claimed, were intending to take a liquid bomb onto a plane. Or several planes. Or several bongs onto several planes. Whatever. The reason you can't take more than 100ml of liquid onto a plane is being put on trial here, essentially. Although if this represents the level of evidence they've got against them - oh, apart from them all looking a bit muslim - then I'm thinking there may be an acquittal. I will revise this opinion if there's more serious evidence at some later point.

As I mentioned closer to the time however, The Register explained very carefully why the liquid (or binary) bomb plot would never have worked.

Still, I'm sure BAA have been delighted in the increase in sales of shampoo, conditioner, toothpaste and soft drinks they've had since the introduction of the liquid ban, eh? Helps them pay for the supreme fuck up that is Terminal 5.

Function Creep

In a spectacularly over the top use of the RIP Act, Poole Council have spent taxpayers' money setting up a covert operation to make sure a family lived where they claimed.

Oh yes.

Not a family of terrorists. Dear me no. That would probably have been assessed as infringing their human rights or some such bollocks. No, much more dangerous than terrorists: a family, who committed the heinous crime of wanting to get their three year old child into a local school.

Suspecting that they lived outside the catchment area for the school, but thinking they would pretend to be living somewhere else, the local council paid one of their own staff to set up a monitoring operation. A 'round the clock' monitoring operation. At taxpayers' expense. To see if a family were entitled to send their child to a local school.

Sorry for repeating myself there. I just wanted to make it quite clear. There was a 'round the clock' monitoring operation. At taxpayers' expense. To see if a family were entitled to send their child to a local school. For fuck's sake.

You don't think the council could just have a look at their own fucking documents and see how long this family had lived at the address, do you? See if they've been paying Council Tax there for longer than the kid had been alive? Because if they have, then it's either legit or it's a fucking amazing bit of lying. Similarly, if they haven't, then see who is supposed to be paying the Council Tax and pop in to speak to them.

How much time can be wasted on something as trivial as this? And how much money?

More than that, how much further can these cunts go and still get away with it?

I am the Revolution and I'd like my fucking country back.

Fingerprinting At Heathrow. Or Not.

With the opening of Heathrow's Terminal Five, BAA were trying to introduce the compulsory fingerprinting of every single domestic passenger who entered the lounge. They claim that this was to stop someone - presumably a wannabe terrorist - from flying through the airport on an international stop-over and swapping tickets with someone on an internal flight, thereby avoiding some levels of security check.

Let's just ignore the improbability of that for a moment and ask why Heathrow (and other UK airports*) mixes domestic and international passengers at all if there is any chance of a security risk. Well, funnily enough it's to extract money from them for the least possible outlay of cash. Have one shopping area and make sure all passengers have to pass by it, then reap the rewards of making people turn up to an airport three hours before a flight and not let them take any open liquid (or more than 100ml of any other liquid) through the security checks.

The usual method of ensuring that the passengers are who they claim to be isn't the obvious "check the name on the ticket matches the name on the photo ID they need to show before getting on the plane", but by use of CCTV cameras taking a photo of each passenger when they enter the terminal. The passenger then gets a card with a barcode on it, and this barcode is scanned as they leave the terminal and the photo compared to make sure it's still them. While I think this is an over the top way of doing it, the Information Commissioner considers it reasonable.

The IC doesn't consider the taking of fingerprints to be at all reasonable however and BAA have had to delay the start of their biometric checking while the arguments between them go back & forth. BAA do insist that they will take fingerprints in the future though, despite the protestations of the IC and various civil liberty groups.

Note, this is for internal travel within the UK. Where you live and pay taxes. Not for going overseas. This is a separate system to that employed for flights to the US or Japan. Although it would obviously be easy to link the system so that the US gets a nice collection of fingerprints for everyone who travels in the UK by plane via Heathrow Terminal 5.

BAA insist that the data is encrypted and destroyed after 24hours. Which could be entertaining if you get to the airport 24hours before your flight leaves - or your flight is delayed or cancelled due to bad weather, for example - as there'd be no corresponding data showing you are who you were when you arrived.

Not that you'd really want to travel through there anyway, seeing as there's been glitches on their first day. Not an auspicious start to the "building site with its own airport".

* On a recent flight from Newcastle to London Gatwick, I was horrified to discover - only when we landed mind, not before we took off so that I could have decided to travel by another method - that photos were taken so you could be compared at a point three hundred yards down the corridor. There's no mention of this on Gatwick's website, so I'm not sure it's entirely legal.

Welcome To Dictatorship

There is a Bill going through Parliament which will allow the removal, revoking or repealing of ANY Act of Parliament by order of a Minister. As has been pointed out on Guido Fawkes's site, this is actually more dictatorial than the Nazi's managed.

According to Jack Straw, the Bill would only have five parts (see paragraph three, here), but part six is where the kicker is.

Part 6
FINAL PROVISION
43 Power to make consequential provision

(1) A Minister o the Crown, or two or more Ministers of the Crown acting jointly, may by order make such provision as the Minister or Ministers consider appropriate in consequence of this Act.

(2) An order under subsection (1) may --

(a) amend, repeal or revoke any provision made by or an Act;

(b) include transitional or saving provision.

(3) An order under subsection (1) is to be made by statutory instrument.

(4) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (1) which amends or repeals a provision of an Act may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(5) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (1) which does not amend or repeal a provision of an Act is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

And before you go slightly mad trying to work out just what that means, may I recommend the excellent SpyBlog's dissection of the true meaning.

The abuse of the catch all, excessively broad wording "amend, repeal or revoke any provision made by or an Act" means that even the Constitutional Acts like Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689, Habeas Corpus, the European Communities Act, the Human Rights Act, the Civil Contingencies Act etc. can all be repealed or amended without the need for a full debate, or for new Primary Legislation, simply by Order of a Minister.

Such an Order could be passed, after a "debate" of about 40 minutes with 15 or 20 minutes for the actual voting through the lobbies, by a quorum of MPs as small as 40 i.e. only 21 Government MPs needed to rubber stamp an Order by a single Secretary of State, if the Order is even debated on the floor of the House of Commons.

It could also be rubber stamped by an even smaller committee of MPs, without any members of the public or the media present.

Un-fucking-believable.

If this Bill goes through unamended, there is essentially no need for Parliament, no need for elections. While we've not been living in a democracy for quite some time, this would move us into the land of dictatorship.

UPDATE: Apparently this isn't as bad as SpyBlog are reading it. The Head Of Legal gives a different version of the interpretation here

However, revolution is still the only way to bring about change.

I am the revolution.

When They Came For Me

In the old allegory of "when they came for the Communists I did not complain as I was not a Communist" etc, the final line is "when they came for me, there was no-one else left". It seems the Government are fully aware of this.

In news today (also leaked yesterday) it seems that the Government are planning to push ID Cards onto airport workers. They claim that this is because of the potential terrorist threat. But it seems an odd place to start as airport workers are already subjected to stringent security checks before they're allowed to go air-side. As is often pointed out, the people responsible for the 7/7 bombings would have had ID Cards if they'd been enforced, and that wouldn't have stopped them in the slightest.

I'm also interested to know how they're planning to force crews from foreign airlines to adopt this policy, but I digress.

The Government have also announced that they will press ahead with the previously mentioned plan to give ID cards to teenagers to "ease" application for bank accounts, student loan applications etc. Now this to me smacks of enforcing the card onto anyone who wants to go to University. Or get a job.

This is yet another attempt to introduce ID Cards by stealth. And if we don't all complain about it now, then by the time it comes for the debate about whether the card should be forced onto the "general public", everyone will have been enforced to have one anyway.

Big brother has been watching you for a very long time.

Prince Harry And The Taliban

As you may have been aware, Prince Harry hasn't been doing shots in London clubs as much as usual recently. No, the third in line to the throne has been shooting terrorists in Afghanistan instead.

I shall point you to the following blog piece about the strange glorification of Prince Harry's brief tour abroad. An excellent read, addressing as it does the lack of any questioning of why "we" are in Afghanistan at all and the almost pro-war stance of the media.

Add to Afghanistan the strange situation in Iraq. We in the UK went - despite the protestations of perhaps a million people - to war with a country because they had the capability of launching weapons of mass destruction at us within 45 minutes. Except they didn't and they couldn't. But they did have quite a lot of oil, handily.

And while we were there, we removed a dictator who was a sponsor of the attacks of 9/11 and the Axis of Evil. Except he wasn't and there is no such axis. But he did have quite a lot of oil, handily.

Oh, and now the Iranians are building a nuclear weapon and may need the might of the "world's greatest democracy"(tm) to teach them a lesson or two. Now the question I have is, do they have oil?

Why do we and America need to keep having wars with people? It's almost like that once the population get used to being at war all the time, they'll put up with stuff they wouldn't do in times of peace; like the removal of civil liberties and the branding of anyone not toeing the party line as a traitor.

War is Peace

Killing In The Name Of

First jolly old Doctor Harold Shipman murdering his way through the elderly. Then Nurse Beverley Allit and her killing of children.

Now we have a new member of the health services to add to the list.

Colin Norris was today convicted of killing four elderly patients in his, er, "care", at two Leeds hospitals. The police believe that it was their early intervention - at the request of a Doctor - that stopped Norris from becoming as prolific as Shipman.

Which does make you wonder just who wants to get into medicine and why, doesn't it?

Now obviously, there are thousands of medical personnel who are committed to making people well and ensuring their care while in hospital or other places of trust. A trip to the hospital shouldn't be made more scary than it already is because you feel you might get killed by one of the staff. You're actually MUCH more likely to be killed by the various infections than the people who work there.

But it's not just hospitals where you're not safe, apparently. There are now TWO Jersey Children's Home investigations into abuse and probably murder.

Best stay at home, eh? Where the Government know where you are. Not out there on the streets, getting attacked by everyone, taken to a hospital where you'll be murdered while your children get taken away into care to be buggered by perverts. And while you're indoors, just keep watching the news to keep you feeling scared. Keep you feeling safe only if you stay in the house, keep yourself to yourself and not get involved.

Ignorance is Strength.