Civil Liberties Targeted?

In earlier days - Cameron supporting the 'hoodie'

So it's war. War on the hoodies, war on the hooligans and war on the tardy response by Cameron to events. Or perhaps not quite...

As Cameron responds with the longest Commons speech in recent history from any Prime Minister is his oversimplistic and authoritarian response simply playing to the gallery or should we be concerned that the party, once seen as the champion of the hoodie and civil liberties, will once again return to its authoritarian and illiberal roots?

Coming back from holiday a full 48 hours late, Cameron made a compelling speech to Parliament yesterday on the crisis which was well received. It was a good speech, a one-nation speech, appealing to the good judgement of the British people. Notable though that the speech was one of the longest ever made by a Prime Minister; in political terms, the metaphor the longer the speech the more concerned the politician for his position is certainly most apt.

What of the other actor Boris Johnson, himself late to events, he has since rightly questioned the Tory policy of cutting Police numbers, but aside from that was utterly absent until the worst of the rioting was finished. Boris has responded badly to events up until yesterday morning when he opposed the government on Police cuts. Boris, despite appearances, is advised by some bright and shrewd operatives (which is why Boris Airport should not be treated as pie-in-the-sky), and clearly has been clever to juxtapose himself with the government, who he suspects will get most of the flack. He is also championing a cause of his opponent Ken Livingstone so stealing his oxygen from the bully pulpit.

It is worth being aware of the statistics here. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary published a report in July estimating that 16,200 police officers would be lost across the country during the Spending Review period. Home Office Statistics show that there are 4625 fewer police officers in England and Wales than in March 2010. These are real Police cutting crime at a time where there damands are increasing due to the recession.

It is also worth mentioning that the Tory cuts do not just impact Police numbers despite the press reports. The Tory Justice proposals (supported by Lib Dems) also include cuts to magistrate services, reduction in court sentences for criminals and huge cuts in the back-office support seen in Police stations. These are not just paper-pushers; they are CCTV operators, crime scene investigators and all other other functions which ensure cases are managed swiftly. Despite the glut of right wing commentary there is no mass of bureaucrats sitting in the background. My fear is that the debate has only focused on Police numbers and not about the cuts to the entire judicial process.

In the UK one third of all magistrate courts are due to be cut; yet the right wing press pay no mention to this key component of the justice system. They have utterly ignored the fact that it is these courts that are presently open for 24 hours.

The drive to shorter sentences, which was ironically used against Gordon Brown in the General Election, will also not be a deterrent to career criminals. How is cutting the number of these thugs going to jail going to deter further riots? The cuts to Prison services and prison place numbers will send the utterly wrong message to criminals.

What is madness is that despite the cuts are to spend millions of pounds on elected sheriffs who have no real power, and which are utterly opposed by sheer ambivalence by the population - it goes directly against the founding principle of the Police through consent of all the people, irrespective of partisan interference and the obvious nutcases who could get elected on authoritarian bandwagons and distort priorities. There is a real fear that the election of commissioners could actually stoke community tension and I support the points of Cllr Paul Carter in Kent. We do not want them.

Despite the press Cameron is walking on very thin ice; his open politicisation of the Police force yesterday by suggesting the operational commanders were 'too timid' and had to approach him was most odd; he wasnt even in the Country until the day after these events.

Meanwhile the political impacts on Tory party is also interesting. There membership should be up in arms about the Police cuts but yet we see nothing of that in Medway with Councillors falling over themselves in motions to Council to support cuts to police and the elected commissioner propsoal.

My fear though is that whilst Cameron accepts a robust law and order position, he may move too far to the right in what could lead to Tory state authoritarianism. We saw it in the 1980s in the North and in Ireland.

Some examples which have banded about today:

Social Media access blocked - Government will have authority to block twitter, blackberry and internet access and shut down phone networks during times of riots. The monitoring of social networks by Police may be popular now after the riots but this could lead to a very dangerous place. Would you feel comfy with the state monitoring your Facebook account, your text messages?

Greater powers for police - The stop and search form has already been 'scrapped' in what could lead to even greater racial stereotyping; remember why they were introduced after the Lawrence stabbing in the 1990s. This 'stop and search' is actually a very contentious issue in communities with large ethnic minorities. We need to be careful not to give Police a right of sanction over citizens who are innocent until proven guilty.

I support the Police but Cameron is not responding with sense on this. Police brutality is one of the major causes of riots in many countries; we do need to be careful that by giving more powers to Police that this blunt instrument wont just lead to more of the same.

Curfew Powers - Perhaps an extention of the Dispersal orders. Once again, such state controlled action needs to be very closely monitored but this is a very interesting move which will alienate Tory libertarians. State imposing order over a large geographical areas is actually unworkable in my mind. What if a law abiding citizen was not aware of the curfew and broke it. Is it right the courts should get involved on curfew disputes? Is it feasible?

CCTV Powers - Cameron has indicated, despite the warm words before the General Election, an extension of CCTV into the lives of citizens. I recently asked a question in Medway about ANPR which shows Medway Conservatives have sanctioned a clear programme of number plate recognition across all areas of our towns. It is clear that despite the warm-words this government is actively persuing CCTV programmes. I hate the hypocrisy of the libertarian Tory right on this, their government is continuing with CCTV and is now suggesting more invasive surveillance.

Council Tax & evictions - The irony is that this is being reported in the same right wing press which then goes onto say in the 'comment' pieces that all these rioters are middle class and educated. The simple fact is the great majority of rioters are not middle class and the causes, though mixed, are related to the social, economic, yes (and Labour has to accept some blame) cultural environment that has led to people being frustrated and a false sense of entitlement about rights and responsibilities.

To where are these people going to move? If benefits are cut how are they going to feed themselves; what if they resort to crime. An eye-for-an-eye is base politics and once analysed logically makes no sense at all.

Vigilante / Community defence - A huge number of Conservatives on twitter have supported the idea of communities arming and standing up for themselves.

Not only does does this lend itself to mob rule but could lead to very dangerous sectarianism where 'self-appointed' community champion set summary justice without due process. Citizens have the power to defend homes and make arrests for those who have committed crimes; they do not have the power to wield weapons on the street to deter potential crime. The scenes in Eltham yesterday when vigilante's targeted an innocent bus user was outrageous but could be echoed elsehwere

I have noticed the calls from these Conservatives has silenced somewhat since the EDL and other groups were seen to be latching onto this type of vigilante type behaviour. The Police are the only designated authority (through warrant) to use violence legally on those they suspect of criminal behaviour; if we usurp this right to other non-state actors this leads us to very dark places indeed.

The coming days will see more posturing from politicians but in haste we need to be careful that whilst we do accept that rights and responsibilities must be equal partners in respect of civil liberties we do not react and reach in haste to some pretty illiberal measures.

Tory Fast Food Ban Gimmick

Health education programme scrapped by the Conservative Government

Residents of Medway are well worn to the tired Medway Conservative tricks of gimmickry and ploys before local elections. None expected it to start so long away from May 2011.

Readers will remember the Tory campaign in 2003 to stop Cliffe Airport only for the same Councillors to campaign for Boris Johnson's election and the idea of the Island Airport. Many residents will remember the cast iron guarantee that the Sir John Hawkins flyover would stay in April 2007 only for a massive u-turn to happen less then two months later. Many will remember Shaw's Wood in Strood and the closure of the Dickens Centre in Rochester.

The Medway Conservative Group is now desperately divided and riven with factionalism. The selections in Rochester & Strood for numerous seats saw respected Councillors knived bloodily out of office. Local Conservative members even resigned the party, including respected local blogger, former Conservative Councillor, John Ward.

So the latest wheeze to ban fast food shops near schools should be taken with a whole crate of salt. It is dog-whistle politics that appeals to nobody on the right at all; which makes it all the more baffling.

This blog supports bans to smoking in public confined places because there is scientific evidence pointing to a direct link between smoking and cancer. Passive smoking is also proven.

The case made by our local Gillingham & Rainham Conservative MP on cutting obesity yesterday was totally ridiculous. Based on poor evidence and with the wrong, and quite frankly authoritarian conclusion.

The core evidence cited to support the ban was based on one study on obesity levels in the U11s which had risen in Medway, and which was above average. That one indicator saw an immediate Conservative response that this was proof that we had a problem with fast food outlets at lunchtimes. Perhaps the Tories are not aware but pupils at that age are not allowed to leave the school premises at lunchtimes. How can fast food be the problem if they are not purchasing the food!

The statistics did however prove the opposite. If the children were not getting fat at school then U11 obesity is caused by home diets, school pack lunches and most importantly a lack of exercise, probably caused by social changes to lifestyle and the rise of computers. Fast food is at best a very minor contributory factor!

According to a recent YouGov Poll 69% of British adults agree that it is not the role of the Government to tell the public what they should and should not eat. 40% of respondents think that it is the responsibility of parents to teach children healthy eating habits, with 57% believing that the role to educate children about making the right food choices should be shared by both parents and schools.

Over eating and measures to reduce fat intake and cut obesity must be supported which is why this blog supports education campaigns, healthy school meals and free fruit. It is why this blog opposed the position of scrapping free swimming for under 16s and it opposed the scrapping of the education programme Change4Life. That one move proves how regressive and backward Conservatives, with their Liberal Democrat allies are with underage obesity. They are cutting education programmes and the means to reduce weight. A double whammy!

The idea of a fast food ban actually began in Waltham Forest in east London where the Council began to turn down applications from people who requested to set up takeaways near schools or young people's facilities. It expanded rapidly to at least 15 other local authorities. They were and are totally wrong.

The evidence that children are obese because of the proximity of fast food shops is absolutely non-existent. There is very little direct evidence that it is fast food shops, vis-a-vis wider social-economic indicators and home diet that cause obesity in the U18 age group. Secondly, it is regressive because it harms local business and trade, whilst actually not serving the students who could actually purchase other fatty goods at the local off-licence or vending machine, namely chocolate, crisps or other items which actually contain equal if not more calories. Fast food takeaways also serve a wider public who have an absolute right to purchase whatever food they desire. Why should communities be forced to close, or relocate fast food shops, because of very scant anecdotal evidence based on outcomes for one age cohort?

In the end our bodies are our individual responsibility unless our actions harm others.

There is also the added dimension that the policy is not retrospective. It is unlikely that the Council will revoke existing licences and what happens when a school is in proximity to a high street or built up area such as in Luton & Wayfield where many schools sit next to primary trade locations. There is a massive legal minefield which is practically unenforceable. Indeed, some schools, like my former alma mata Kings School Rochester even sell chocolate bars, pasties and pastry products on premises.

Are the Tories seriously suggesting they will force the school not to sell certain food stuffs?

Are the Tories seriously suggesting they would force fast food restaurants and local business, that employ staff, to close on scant evidence?

Are they seriously suggesting that the law abiding majority cant make sensible and independent choices about what they eat sensibly?

Are they seriously suggesting that the reason why we have childhood obesity is solely because of proximity of fast food restaurants?

This Medway Conservative policy was nothing but a cheap gimmick by an administration which has not considered all the options and is latching on an knee-jerk but over-reactionary response on poor evidence.

A sensible option, perhaps, is instead of attacking and undermining local business is actually, shock horror, to work with them! Chip shops, kebab shops, pizza outlets and Indian and Chinese carryout restaurants are working with councils in many parts of the country to make their dishes lower in fat, salt, sugar and calories while preserving their taste, appeal and cost.

In Liverpool, for example, eight Chinese takeaways, eight Indian restaurants and four other fast-food premises have agreed to participate in Eatright Liverpool, a joint initiative between the city council, PCT and Liverpool John Moores University to bring in healthier menus. Under the £1m NHS-funded scheme, nutritionists from the university, led by food science lecturer Dr Leo Stevenson, will devise new formulations of popular products for fast-food businesses across the city. They have acted after the council nutritionally analysed the contents of 300 takeaway dishes and found staggeringly high levels of salt, saturated fats and calories.

Another sensible option to be considered and that was the position of the previous Labour administration and other Labour Councils. Make school meals healthier, fund NHS campaigns to educate pupils and perhaps, and with consent from parents, ban chocolate vending machines in schools. Barking and Dagenham council even charged a £1,000 levy on any new outlets, to be spent on tackling childhood obesity. An idea.

An outright ban is simply unnecessary.

This joint-approach of working requires funding and NHS support. Which brings this blogger back to the core argument about why Conservatives can not be trusted.

They are cutting the budgets and the health schemes, like free swimming, which can reduce obesity. They are cutting doctors and nurses from the NHS and are undermining our core public services. There MPs have supported the cuts to health programmes specifically targeted at educating young people about health.

One ill-considered Tory gimmick and the cuts to health programmes like free swimming prove that the Tories are out of touch

Thats Taking Liberties!

It seems that the loony Libertarian brigade are still banging on about the 'Ciggy busting' campaign by Hundred of Hoo Pupils a few weeks ago.

This blog was targeted by those on the loony Libertarian fringes along with fellow Medway Liberal Democrat Gary Allanach. We both disagreed on the legality of the event for our respective reasons

Indeed, the flurry of comments on both blogs can perhaps be attributed to the cross-linking by leading Libertarian Simon Clark, who has taken the odd comment out of context, and allowed a flurry of personal bile to remain beneath.

Nice bunch these libertarians!

The Council of course has been dealing with the copious quantities of paperwork over these complaints. One such response can be read on the popular Boiling Frog's blog:

Re: Formal Complaint – Rachael Noxon

I refer to your recent email about the Ciggybusters project.

We have checked with the organisers and all the people who had cigarettes taken off of them, and they were actors or willing participants. At no point did any smokers have their cigarettes taken without their permission.

This project, which looks at the dangers of smoking, was funded through a Community Chest grant by A Better Medway – a health campaign run by Medway Council and NHS Medway. Singling out the Tobacco Control Strategy Co-ordinator specifically as focus for your complaint is therefore inappropriate.

This project was something that was arranged and managed by the people that made the film, but neither Medway Council or NHS Medway would have condoned any activity that could cause offence.

The young people making the film, and the adults overseeing it, carefully stage-managed this to make sure that relevant organisations and participants were aware of the event in advance.

Everyone who took part knew what was happening and were not in any way offended. At no point were members of the public approached without their permission.

For these reasons I do not uphold your complaint.

Yours Sincerely

After receiving the letter it seems that Boiling Frog is closer to boiling point than the namesake blog suggests. The blog quickly retorts that Medway Council has not listened to the issue, and then goes onto cite supporting evidence from Liberal Democrat Councillor Gary Allanach.

Except, Boiling Frog has perhaps over boiled this one. Mr Allanach is not a Councillor. He is however a top 75 award winning Liberal Democrat blogger.

So there you go then. Totally legal and above board it would seem to all. Perhaps now our Hundred of Hoo pupils can return to Facebook without the snide remarks?

The one positive from all this.

With all these libertarians linking to this blog as well as Gary Allanach, it has surely now put its TotalPolitics rankings up from 98th!