Bollox Britain

The government has been accused of trampling on individual liberties by proposing wide-ranging new powers for bailiffs to break into homes and to use reasonable force against householders who try to protect their valuables.

Under the regulations, bailiffs for private firms would for the first time be given permission to restrain or pin down householders. They would also be able to force their way into homes to seize property to pay off debts, such as unpaid credit card bills and loans.

The government, which wants to crack down on people who evade debts, says the new powers would be overseen by a robust industry watchdog. However, the laws are being criticised as the latest erosion of the rights of the householder in his own home.

These laws strip away tried and tested protections that make a person's home his castle, and which have stood for centuries, said Paul Nicolson, chairman of the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust, a London-based welfare charity. They could clearly lead to violent confrontations and undermine fundamental liberties.

It emerged last week that Her Majesty's Courts Service has already handed out guidance to privately employed bailiffs, pointing out that under legislation passed in 2004 they can already break down doors as a last resort to collect court fines.

Some restraint should be exercised, according to the search and entry powers guidelines. If a person locks himself in their home, it might be reasonable to break open the door, but probably not to smash a hole in the wall, it advises.

Details of the new guidelines were obtained under freedom of information laws. They say homes should not be broken into when nobody is in. Reasonable grounds for breaking down the door include the movement of a curtain, a radio being heard or a figure being spotted inside which may be the offender.

Comment: A Big Mistake

29th December. From Alan

Fascinated to read the story about bailiffs being allowed to kick the door in. A few months ago, I came home to find a note from bailiffs through the door. Nothing to do with me, or indeed my address. My street name and number happen to be duplicated in at least three suburbs of my largish town. The pillocks had come to the wrong "Umpteen, Something Street", evidently being unable to read the postcode.

If I'd been out and they had "suspected" the curtain had twitched, this new law could have meant I would have come home to a ransacked flat.

Schools have installed CCTV cameras and microphones in classrooms to watch and listen to pupils.

The Big Brother-style surveillance is being marketed as a way to identify pupils disrupting lessons when teachers' backs are turned.

Classwatch, the firm behind the system, says its devices can be set up to record everything that goes on in a classroom 24 hours a day and used to compile evidence of wrongdoing. The equipment is sold with Crown Prosecution Service-approved evidence bags to store material to be used in court cases.

Data protection watchdog the Information Commissioner has warned the surveillance may be illegal and demanded to know why primary and secondary schools are using this kind of sophisticated equipment to watch children. Officials said they would be contacting schools to seek proper justification for the equipment's use. A spokesman said the system raised privacy concerns for teachers, students and their parents. The use of microphones to record conversations is deeply intrusive and we will be seeking further clarification on their use in schools and, if necessary, we will issue further guidance to headteachers.

Classwatch is set to face further scrutiny over the role of Shadow Children's Minister Tim Loughton, the firm's £30,000-a-year chairman.

The systems cost around £3,000 to install in each classroom or can be leased for about £50 per classroom per month. The firm says the devices act as impartial witnesses which can provide evidence in disputes and curb bullying and unruly behaviour and protect teachers against false allegations of abuse – plus provide evidence acceptable in court.

Schools are required to inform all parents that microphones and cameras are monitoring their children.

A London teacher who won £250,000 compensation after a pupil tried to strangle him has criticised a can't touch culture in schools after other staff initially refused to intervene.

Colin Adams was attacked by a 12- year- old boy, who knocked him to the floor before punching and kicking him, and grabbing his neck. But despite other teachers yelling at the boy to stop, no one stepped in to help.

Adams's ordeal ended only after another teacher eventually came to his aid by forcing the boy's thumbs back to release his hold. Later, the unnamed teacher admitted to Adams that he was afraid the boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, would accuse him of assault.

The police informed the school they could have kicked the boy in his back to make him let go, but I am not sure there is any teacher anywhere who would be willing to do that for fear of repercussions.

Wishing you a miserable christmas from all at Norwich Council

Police have used anti-social behaviour laws to stop shopkeepers handing out mulled wine to customers as part of a village's Christmas celebrations.

Traders are angry that officers from Fife Constabulary moved in to stamp out a practice that has been a tradition in Anstruther for 17 years.

They have been told they must apply for an alcohol licence in future for the event, which begins the East
Neuk community's festive season.

Police said shopkeepers were sending out the wrong message when officers were trying to tackle alcohol abuse and underage drinking in the area.

The festive tipple was handed out by several shops when they stayed open late two weeks ago.

Martin Dibley, the secretary of the Royal Burgh of Kilrenny, Anstruther and District Community Council, said: It's a bit of 'bah, humbug'.

Another trader said: Giving adults a glass of spicy mulled wine to celebrate Christmas can hardly be compared to throwing vodka down a teenager's throat. The whole thing was hardly done in the Christmas spirit.

Elizabeth Gordon, who lives in the village, said police were telling shop owners they would nick them if they gave out mulled wine.

Inspector David Brown said: Preventing misuse of alcohol is a key commitment of Fife Constabulary and requires rigorous enforcement of the by-laws banning drinking and carrying of open containers of alcohol in public places.

While our emphasis is on using the by-laws to target alcohol abuse and underage drinking in the Anstruther area, it would send out the wrong message if we were to permit drinking in public for other groups of people.

In a letter to the National Union of Journalists, the Minister for security and counter-terrorism, Vernon Kay, clarified that the police may stop photographers taking pictures or videos when the taking of photographs may cause or lead to public order situations or inflame an already tense situation or raise security considerations. The Police have already been using heightened security tensions and their powers under the Terrorism Act to remove and harass people documenting political demonstrations, which was the cause of the dialogue with the NUJ.

This signifies the Home Office coming clean and admitting from now on the Police will have ability to remove anyone at all with a camera - all the police have to do is declare, possibly not even publicly, that there are special circumstances:

Additionally, the police may require a person to move on in order to prevent a breach of the peace or to avoid a public order situation or for the person's own safety and welfare or for the safety and welfare of others.

This means if you witnessed the police bundling someone into the back of a van and decided to film it on your camera phone, you would be breaking the law. If a professional journalist did so, they would also be breaking the law.

What is it about the office of home secretary that makes perfectly decent politicians turn away from civil liberties in favour of police powers?

The record of home secretaries under Blair and Brown is scarcely exemplary

What is about the office of home secretary, which transforms relatively well-adjusted Labour ministers into illiberal controllers of our freedom?

Jacqui Smith has already joined the line of recent Labour Home Secretaries who have put aside luxurious notions of individual rights in favour of police powers.

The events surrounding the arrest of Damian Green MP amply demonstrated her acceptance of the police as an authority beyond reproach; seemingly trumping even Parliament.

...Read full article

Plumber Martin Solomon was heard by neighbours as he shouted foul and offensive language at his TV, magistrates in Stroud heard.

His ranting put him in breach of an anti-social behaviour order (ASBO) which had been imposed at an earlier hearing to try to stop him shouting and swearing at the television whenever he disagreed with a programme.

Simon James, defending at Stroud Magistrates' Court, said: Mr Solomon often drinks more than is good for him. He will have a drink and will return home. Then he will put on the television and if someone on the TV says something that upsets him, he will swear at the TV.

The court heard that his neighbours in Farmhill close, Stroud - among them two children aged two and 11 - were disturbed from their sleep and upset by the language.

Stroud District Council obtained the two-year ASBO order in Gloucester Magistrates' Court on September 27 last year. But Solomon broke the order on October 21 at 10.10pm, October 23 at 23.55pm and November 10 at 9.55pm, the court heard.

Solomon admitted the breach in a police interview and pleaded guilty in court.

James said: He has tried very hard to comply with the order. He said Solomon had consulted a doctor and a rehabilitation service.

Colin Peake, SDC's anti-social behaviour co-ordinator, said: It's very frustrating for the family next door who've got two young children.

He was fined £80 and told to pay £60 costs plus a £15 victim surcharge at the hearing.

A grandfather was left humiliated after being handed a £60 litter fine when his cigarette was knocked out of his hand as he walked past a scuffle between police and shoplifters.

Lazaris Michael, 76, had taken a single puff before his smoke was sent flying as officers apprehended two girls who were trying to flee a branch of Boots.

But the pensioner did not have time to bend down and pick it up before a council warden pounced on him and hit him the fixed penalty for littering in front of a large crowd.

When he begged the council to show common sense and drop the case they responded by threatening him with an even bigger fine if he does not pay up.

He has since written to the council asking them to investigate the case, which he says was the result of an over zealous council warden.

But he has been told the fee will be increased to £80 if he does not pay up.

Thanet Council's environment chief jobsworth Shirley Tomlinson said: We are happy with the process that has been followed.

Thanet Council's campaign warns people the council will take a zero tolerance approach to anyone who drops litter, including cigarette butts and chewing gum. If spotted, no excuses will be accepted. You will be handed a fine. It is therefore important to dispose of any litter in the right way. Our wardens have been doing what they have been instructed to do and we cannot make any allowances.'

When three police officers came knocking at Brett Duxfield's door at 8am, he could not imagine what he had done wrong. The 39-year-old Hartlepool lorry driver was arrested, taken to the police station, questioned and kept in the cells for 10 hours. His alleged crime? Lighting a bonfire on the village green in Elwick, where he used to live. On Bonfire Night.

It turned out that this breached an ancient, but recently revived, by-law. So he was charged with arson, for which the maximum penalty is life in prison.

This kind of disproportionate reaction is becoming something of a habit for the police. When Inspector Tony Green, of Cleveland Police, announced, We are duty-bound to follow a complaint through, he was using almost exactly the same words as the Metropolitan Police did to justify arresting Damian Green, the Tories' front-bench spokesman on immigration, as well as searching his offices, seizing his computer, rifling through his private papers and freezing his email account.

Since when were the police duty-bound to behave like this? In what way does following a complaint through require three police officers to arrest someone who may have acted anti-socially, detain him for 10 hours and charge him with an offence that was once a capital crime?

...Read full article

The National Police Improvement Agency, on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers has now issued some updated advice.

It includes:

Photography

The Terrorism Act 2000 does not prohibit people from taking photographs or digital images in an area where an authority under section 44 is in place. Officers should not prevent people taking photographs unless they are in an area where photography is prevented by other legislation.

If officers reasonably suspect that photographs are being taken as part of hostile terrorist reconnaissance, a search under section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 or an arrest should be considered. Film and memory cards may be seized as part of the search, but officers do not have a legal power to delete images or destroy film. Although images may be viewed as part of a search, to preserve evidence when cameras or other devices are seized, officers should not normally attempt to examine them. Cameras and other devices should be left in the state they were found and forwarded to appropriately trained staff for forensic examination. The person being searched should never be asked or allowed to turn the device on or off because of the danger of evidence being lost or damaged.

General Points

Terrorism powers must never be used for matters that are not related to terrorism.

Officers should take care to correctly record the power used on the record of search. Officers searching under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (but not section 43) can require subjects to remove footwear and headgear in public. (Officers should be aware of cultural sensitivities when requiring people to remove headgear .)

There is no power to stop people taking photographs or digital images in public places under the Terrorism Act 2000.

Terrorism powers of search should be conducted in accordance with the principles of Code A of PACE

...Read full article

Frightening new police powers have emerged following the shocking treatment of Stoke City fans prior to their team's away fixture with Manchester United on Saturday, November 15, 2008.

An estimated 80 Stoke supporters visited the Railway Inn pub in Irlam, Greater Manchester, on their way to Old Trafford. The pub was a natural stop-off point, being on en route to the stadium via the M6 and a local railway station. By all accounts that the Football Supporters' Federation have heard it was a relatively quiet atmosphere, with little singing, never mind trouble.

However, at 1.15pm a number of officers from Greater Manchester Police (GMP) entered the premises and told fans they would not be allowed to leave the pub, would be forcibly taken back to Stoke, and not be allowed to visit Old Trafford.

Each supporter was then issued with a Section 27 from the Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2006. This allows police to move someone from a specified area for a period of up to 48 hours. You do not actually have to have committed any offence for the act to be enforced. Section 27 gives police the powers to move anybody, from any place, at anytime, if they think there's a possibility an alcohol related offence may be committed.

Stoke City fan Lyndon Edwards, who is making a formal complaint to GMP and the Independent Police Complaints Commission, was one of those in the pub: I asked for it to be stated on the Section 27 form given that I was not intoxicated and that there was no evidence of any disorder on my part. This was refused so I refused to sign the form. I was told to sign it or I would be arrested. We were then loaded onto buses and had to sit there for what seemed like an eternity.

There were no football chants being sung at the Railway Inn and no evidence of disorder whatsoever. If there had of been we would have left the pub and made our way elsewhere.

The Stoke supporters were then driven back in convoy to Stoke city centre, regardless of whether this was actually where they were from.

I have spoken to a number of Stoke fans who were there and I am quite satisfied that they did absolutely nothing wrong, but they end being hauled back to Stoke against their will and missing the game, said Malcolm Clarke, chair of the FSF and a Stoke City fan: They were treated very badly by the Greater Manchester Police. This new law gives the police a great deal of instant power which can severely affect the basic civil rights of football supporters, if they happen to be in the wrong pub or on the wrong train at the wrong time.

German police will get sweeping new powers to hack into people's home computers with 'Trojan' viruses sent through the internet.

Under a compromise between the hardline Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble and dissenting MPs, Germany's Parliament is put unprecedented power in the hands of the Federal Criminal Police (BKA). Under the compromise, the police will need a judge's approval before using the Trojans, even in an emergency.

Trojans will carry Remote Forensic Software that can search hard drives and send evidence back to investigators without their having to enter the suspect's home.

Rolf Tophoven from the Institute for Terrorism Research and Security Policy said: We need this. The masterminds among the terrorist groups of today are highly qualified, very sophisticated people. The police need as much power as we can give them so that they can remain at the technological level of the terrorists. After all, the terrorists already have a huge advantage: they have the first shot."

Based on article from theregister.co.uk

In practical terms there are many potential drawbacks to this Trojan approach.

For starters, infecting the PC of a target of an investigation is hit and miss. Malware is not a precision weapon, and that raises the possibility that samples of the malware might fall into the hands of cybercrooks.

Even if a target does get infected there's a good chance any security software they've installed will detect the malware. Any security vendor who agreed to turn a blind eye to state-sanctioned Trojans would risk compromising their reputation, as amply illustrated by the Magic Lantern controversy in the US a few years back.

A judge has condemned a police assault on a soldier who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Lance Corporal Mark Aspinall, 24, was thrown to the ground by three uniformed officers after a night out with friends and punched eight times.

The violent arrest - caught on CCTV - shocked a crown court judge, who called it appalling.

But astonishingly, Lance Corporal Aspinall was himself hauled before the courts and convicted of assaulting the police.

He was sentenced to 200 hours' community service and even ordered to pay compensation to the officers.

His ordeal ended only when Judge John Phipps watched the damning CCTV footage and quashed the verdict on appeal.

Judge Phipps said: I am shocked and appalled at the level of police violence shown here.

Police officers had been called to the town centre to deal with a man reportedly causing a nuisance to paramedics. But when a special constable and two colleagues saw Aspinall in the road they presumed he was the cause of the trouble.

In the footage, the soldier can be seen 10ft from them in the middle of the road as they stand on the pavement. Suddenly, the officers move across the road towards him and, startled, Aspinall falls over. As he gets to his feet one officer rugby tackles him, while the other two help pin him to the ground and attempt to handcuff him.

The footage appears to show one of the officers - Special Constable Peter Lightfoo raining punches into the back of the defenceless man as he lies on the ground. Eight blows are struck in just a few seconds and the police officer stops only when a car drives past slowly.

Eventually, Aspinall was bundled into a police van in handcuffs, with injuries to his face and neck. He was taken to Wigan police station and kept in custody for 20 hours. He was charged with two counts of police assault and a public order offence.

On September 22, at Wigan magistrates' court, the officers read statements claiming  Aspinall had been behaving violently. Despite viewing the footage, magistrates found him guilty of the assaults, sentenced him to community service and gave him a suspended-prison sentence. They also ordered him to pay £250 compensation.

He lodged an appeal against the conviction and on November 13 at Liverpool Crown Court, Judge Phipps saw the footage and asked: Where is this man of violence? I am shocked and appalled at the level of police violence shown here. The judge said he had great concerns about the CCTV footage and questioned the truthfulness of the officers' statements: I would go as far as to say the statements contain untruths.

A spokesman for Greater Manchester Police said the matter had been referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. One officer has had his duties restricted and another two are being investigated.

[How about all those responsible for the prosecution and original sentencing? Surely some jail time is due to them to]

Wishing you a miserable christmas from all at Norwich Council

A Hairdressers who offer their customers a festive glass of mulled wine at Christmas have been warned that they face six months in jail and a £20,000 fine.

The threat was made by council chiefs, who even announced that they will send officers into salons under cover in an effort to catch offenders. Hairdressers have criticised the move as "Scrooge-like".

Norwich City Council wrote to all hairdressing businesses in the city ordering them to get a licence if they want to serve alcoholic drinks. Sent to 104 salons in Norwich, the letter states that the practice of serving complimentary alcoholic drinks is a breach of the law and requires various licences.

It then warns: To address this issue enforcement action, including the use of undercover officers, may be undertaken in the near future.

The council also declares that anyone found guilty of unlawfully supplying alcohol could face a maximum of six months in jail, a maximum fine of £20,000 or both.

Nigel Matthews, owner of Nigel Alexandre salon, said: The vast majority of salons serve tea and coffee throughout the year and in the couple of weeks before Christmas offer a glass of wine or mulled wine or sherry. It seems very Scrooge-like to send a letter out just as we are entering the festive period. It is traditional, the clients are rewarded and it is all part of the customer service.

What struck me was the potential sentence – you get a lot less than that for a lot more than serving a glass of wine.

A council spokesprat said that under the 2003 Licensing Act sale by retail includes providing alcohol to customers as part of the service. He added that a letter of complaint was received last month about salons offering drinks.

We wanted to make sure small businesses did not unwittingly fall foul of the law while trying to spread a little Christmas cheer in the build-up to the festive season, he said.

Michael Stephenson, misery services manager, said: We accept the letter we sent out to hairdressers in the city may not appear to be in keeping with the festive mood and are sorry if it has been misunderstood... HOWEVER ...we are a licensing authority and there is a serious message here about the enforcement of licensing laws and helping businesses make sure they do not fall foul of the law."

The police force that issued a teenager with a court summons for calling Scientology a cult could face a judicial review over the legality of its policing guidelines.

Although prosecutors last week declined to take the 16-year-old to court, freedom of speech campaigners, Liberty,  are to ask City of London police to explain how the initial decision to issue the summons was made.

Campaigners said they would call for a judicial review if it is found that the force's guidelines for policing demonstrations led officers to confront the schoolboy.

Shami Chakrabarti, the director of the civil liberties organisation Liberty, which spearheaded the teenager's defence, said: We want to know who gave the instruction to issue this summons. Curtailing people's freedom of speech is a very serious issue and it's important to know whether this is part of the force's policy or a decision relating specifically to the Church of Scientology. There is the possibility of a complaint to the IPCC or a judicial review.

Chakrabarty said she was concerned the police action could have a "chilling effect" on other protesters who wanted to express their opinions: Some people are very easily intimidated and will be put off exercising their right to free speech by the thought that they may face court action over it. We have to defend that right and show how wrong the police were in issuing this summons.

A masters student researching terrorist tactics who was arrested and detained for six days after his university informed police about al-Qaida-related material he downloaded has spoken of the "psychological torture" he endured in custody.

Despite his Nottingham University supervisors insisting the materials were directly relevant to his research, Rizwaan Sabir, 22, was held for nearly a week under the Terrorism Act, accused of downloading the materials for illegal use. The student had obtained a copy of the al-Qaida training manual from a US government website for his research into terrorist tactics.

The case highlights what lecturers are claiming is a direct assault on academic freedom led by the government which, in its attempt to establish a "prevent agenda" against terrorist activity, is putting pressure on academics to become police informers.

Sabir was arrested on May 14 after the document was found by a university staff member on an administrator's computer. The administrator, Hisham Yezza, an acquaintance of Sabir, had been asked by the student to print the 1,500-page document because Sabir could not afford the printing fees. The pair were arrested under the Terrorism Act, Sabir's family home was searched and their computer and mobile phones seized. They were released uncharged six days later but Yezza, who is Algerian, was immediately rearrested on unrelated immigration charges and now faces deportation.

Dr Alf Nilsen, a research fellow at the university's school of politics and international relations, said that Yezza is being held at Colnbrook immigration removal centre, due to be deported on Tuesday.

Of his detention, Sabir said: I was absolutely broken. I didn't sleep. I'd close my eyes then hear the keys clanking and I would be up again. As I realised the severity I thought I'd end up in Belmarsh with the nutcases. It was psychological torture.

On Tuesday they read me a statement confirming it was an illegal document which shouldn't be used for research purposes. To this day no one has ever clarified that point. They released me. I was shaking violently, I fell against the wall, then on the floor and I just cried.

Bettina Rentz, a lecturer in international security and Sabir's personal tutor, said: He's a serious student, who works very hard and wants a career in academia. This is a great concern for our academic freedom but also for the climate on campus.

Students have begun a petition calling on the university to acknowledge the disproportionate nature of [its] response to the possession of legitimate research materials.

Update: Deportation Stayed

1st June 2008, See full article from the Guardian

More than 300 supporters of Yezza campaigned at the university campus this week, some dressed in Guantánamo-style orange suits marked "academic researcher", while others read from the al-Qaida manual to illustrate the fact that it is legal unless being used for illegal purposes.

An application to the High Court in London has been issued seeking a judicial review of the decisions of the Home Office in deportation of Hicham Yezza.

The removal directions set for Sunday 1st June have now been cancelled by the Home Office, and an application will be made to them this afternoon for Mr Yezza to be released while his case is reconsidered.

A human rights group has pledged to take action against a police force which tried to prosecute a teenager for branding Scientology a "cult".

The 16-year-old faced prosecution after refusing to get rid of a placard which said Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult at a protest outside the church's headquarters in London on 10 May.

He was told that his sign breached the Public Order Act, which makes it an offence to display a sign that is threatening, insulting or abusive, but the Crown Prosecution Service said no action would be taken against the teenager.

The human rights group Liberty, whose lawyers have been advising the boy, is now considering action against the City of London Police.

A gay man who faces the death penalty in Iran has won asylum in the UK after protests prompted the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, to reconsider his case.

Family and supporters of Mehdi Kazemi, now 20, welcomed the decision yesterday not to send him back to Iran where his boyfriend was arrested by the state police and executed for sodomy.

Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat MP for North Southwark and Bermondsey, said: I am delighted by the Home Office decision that my constituent Mehdi Kazemi can now stay in this country. This is great news for a very decent guy.

Kazemi came to London to study in 2005, but in April 2006 discovered his gay partner had been arrested and named him as his boyfriend before his execution. Fearing he might suffer the same fate if he returned, Kazemi decided to seek asylum in Britain. His claim was refused and he fled to the Netherlands where he also failed to win asylum before returning to Britain last month.

The UK Border Agency said it had decided to allow him asylum, granting him leave to remain for five years. A spokesman for the agency said: We keep cases under review where circumstances have changed and it has been decided that Mr Kazemi should be granted leave to remain.

City of London Police have been made to look exceedingly foolish following their issuing of a court summons to a teenager for displaying a sign that branded Scientology a “dangerous cult”.

And today the boy'
s protest was vindicated when the Crown Prosecution Service ruled the words were neither “abusive or insulting” to the church and no further action would be taken against him.

The unnamed 16-year-old was handed a court summons by City of London police for refusing to put down a placard saying Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult during a peaceful protest outside the church'
s headquarters near St Paul'
s Cathedral earlier this month.

Police said they had “strongly advised” him to stop displaying the sign but he refused, citing a high court judgment from 1984 in which the organisation was described as a cult. The summons was issued under the Public Order Act on the grounds that the sign incited religious hatred.

A file was passed to the CPS, which today told City of London police it would not be pursuing the boy through the courts.

A spokeswoman for the force said: The CPS review of the case includes advice on what action or behaviour at a demonstration might be considered to be threatening, abusive or insulting. The force'
s policing of future demonstrations will reflect this advice.

A CPS spokesman added: In consultation with the City of London police, we were asked whether the sign, which read ‘Scientology is not a religion it is a dangerous cult'
, was abusive or insulting. Our advice is that it is not abusive or insulting and there is no offensiveness, as opposed to criticism, neither in the idea expressed nor in the mode of expression. No action will be taken against the individual.

City of London police have been cracking down hard on religious intolerance this week and on one four letter word in particular – CULT. And when does the word cult become illegal? Curiously only when it'
s applied to the Church of Scientology (CoS) - and in the Square Mile.

Around two-hundred anti-Scientology protesters gathered outside the CoS London base on Queen Victoria Street last Saturday as part of a day of action. Sporting Guy Fawkes masks, many carried signs accusing the organisation of being a cult. They were greeted by a number of City of London Police.

Two officers approached one 15-year-old who was wearing a huge-nosed mask and holding a sign saying Scientology is not a religion – it is a dangerous cult.

He was handed a pre-printed warning by a WPC stating, The sign you are displaying commits an offence under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 .. you are strongly advised to remove the sign with immediate effect.

One cop told SchNEWS'
 man on the scene that, the idea is that if somebody gets prosecuted there will be a test case Police were clearly out to protect CoS'
s reputation with one officer telling us, Our solicitors at the Crown Prosecution Service have advised us that any signs saying ‘Scientology is a cult'
 could be deemed offensive. They are being treated as a religious organisation for the purposes of today.

Ten minutes later and the cops returned. The youth was chased up an alleyway and then forced to hand over his details for a court summons.

So why the sudden desire to defend Scientology so strenuously? Maybe because the scientologists and the City of London Police appear to have a rather cosy relationship, with Chief Superintendent Kevin Hurley speaking at the opening of the London HQ in October, saying the science-fiction cultists were raising the spiritual wealth of society.

Update: Barmy

21st May 2008

The case was described as "barmy" and an attack on free speech by Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, the human rights group.

She said: "They will be banning words like 'war' and 'tax' from placards and demonstrations next. This is just barmy."

Every little abuse helps

Tesco claim they are trying to clampdown on underage drinking but staff often make mistakes when they stop parents shopping with children.

Parents shopping with their own children are being refused alcohol for fear they are supplying drink to minors.

Workers have been told not to serve adults accompanied by children in the latest crack-down on underage drinking.

However diligent shop staff are applying the letter of the law and refusing to serve parents who are on weekly shopping trips with their children.

Television medium Dominic Zenden could never have predicted that he would have been barred from buying a six-pack of beer at the respectable age of 45 - 27 years over the legal age. The television star was with his daughter Devon, 15, when he tried to buy six bottles of Budweiser beer. But staff refused to believe his insistence the alcohol was not for the schoolgirl - and would not sell him it.

I was dumbfounded, said Zenden: There was absolutely no indication that my daughter would be drinking the alcohol - it was for me. I fancied a nice cool beer on a warm evening. But the woman told me that they don't sell alcohol to people who have children with them.

Ms Bell fell foul of the rules when she popped into a Tesco Extra Store to pick up a crate of lager while her husband Mick, 46, was buying petrol. With stepson Michael Bruce, 18, by her side, she was preparing to pay when the checkout assistant called over a supervisor to ask whether they could serve her. Incredibly, the supervisor decided that Ms Bell was not permitted to buy the beer. The reason given was that they said she was buying it for Michael - who is 18 and able to buy alcohol regardless.

Tesco today said they trained their store workers to ask for proof of age for anyone present at the purchase who they suspect may consume the alcohol. But they admitted: Quite often they may be mistaken and the adult may be buying it for themselves. But we would rather the staff err on the side of caution than risk selling to someone who is buying alcohol for people who are under age.

A Tesco spokesprat added: We are doing lots of work to try to stop under-age people from being able to get hold of alcohol and one of the biggest problems has become adults buying for people who are underage. If our staff suspect that people are buying for people who are under the age of 18 then we do not serve them."

But Zenden said: I can understand people not wanting to sell alcohol to children. But they haven't got signs up to say that they won't sell to people who have their children with them. If they did it would save a lot of embarrassment at the till.

This is the moment a tourist died in the street after being restrained by police.

Frank Ogboru, 43, was sprayed with CS gas and pinned down after a minor row. CCTV footage captured him losing consciousness after screaming: I can't breathe. I can't breathe.

The Nigerian businessman, who was in London on holiday, stopped breathing and was declared dead in hospital.

Witnesses said officers had their "knees and feet" on him as he "wailed like a dog". But the CPS decided there was "insufficient evidence" for any of the officers to be charged in connection with Ogboru's death in Woolwich in September 2006.

Officers were called to Calderwood Street where Ogboru had rowed with the girlfriend of the man he was staying with. CCTV footage shows him calmly talking to two officers but when they order him not to return to the flat a struggle ensues.

Two more officers arrive to help restrain him. Footage appears to show one officer's knee over his neck as his head dangles over the kerb. When the police saw Ogboru had stopped breathing they tried to revive him but it was too late.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission investigated and the four officers were questioned under caution. A pathologist gave "asphyxia during restraint" as the cause of death but the CPS decided "a jury would find that the restraint was not unlawful" as there was not sufficient evidence that the officers had breached their duty of care.

The four officers remain on restricted duties. The IPCC will send a file to the Met for its recommendation on whether disciplinary action should be taken. The IPCC will then take the final decision.

A headmaster caught fishing with an out-of-date rod licence is waiting to hear if he will lose his job for having a criminal record.

Bob Yeomans described his predicament as 'child protection gone mad' after his conviction for forgetting to renew the £25 permit was referred to a council panel.

Yeomans, the head of St John's Church of England Primary in Walsall for 26 years, was caught by a water bailiff last summer while on a fishing trip on the Dove in Derbyshire. Horrified at his oversight, he immediately pleaded guilty. He later paid a £50 fine and £70 costs and considered it the end of the matter.

But almost a year later the offence was flagged up by the Criminal Records Bureau following a routine background check.

The chair of governors was notified there could be an issue with a CRB check and rang to tell me, Yeomans said. I said, 'Is it a member of staff?' and he said, 'No, it's you'.

I was shocked. In effect, he was being asked if I was fit to work with children for forgetting to renew my rod licence.

As required by procedure, the chairman referred the matter to a council panel that decides whether staff can continue teaching.

It's a bit of a joke in the school now, he said. But you'd have thought someone would have had some common sense at an earlier stage. It was just child protection gone mad. It was clear the offence was irrelevant.

Mick Brookes, of the National Association of Head Teachers, said: He forgot to renew his fishing licence... that is the level of trivia that is bedevilling us all - it's petty.

A spokesman for Education Walsall, part of the Serco group which runs education with the council, said the panel dealing with such cases looked at factors including the seriousness of the offence or allegation, the history of offences and time since the event in question. In the vast majority of cases, a positive trace will not mean that a person cannot be employed or continue to be employed.

Have you got a licence for that camera?

Re: Photographers beware

There's a similarly themed video showing an example here:

http://2point8.whileseated.org/2008/03/19/currenttv-on-uk-photo-restrictions

What's interesting is it seems to be - both in that video and the original article - more Police Community Support Officers than real cops who're into this bullying. (And note the demand for ID - like the ID card wouldn't be used this way, eh?)

Oddly, I grew up with the view that the great British Bobby is usually the good guy - but the PCSOs and Street Wardens seem to have added all these unnecessary levels that just give people who wouldn't pass the psych-requirements for the real cops a chance to pull on the jackboots.

Anyway, photographers can check out this link too:

www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf

It cost £14,000 to create, but clearly no-one at the smart London design outfit that came up with the new logo for HM Treasury thought to turn it on its side.

The new logo, for the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) has generated howls of mirth when it was unveiled to employees. They spotted the clanger within seconds. Staff have apparently now stripped their office of souvenirs bearing the logo.

A spokesman for OGC said: It is true that it caused a few titters among some staff when viewed on its side, but on consideration we concluded that the effect was generic to the particular combination of the letters OGC - and it is not inappropriate to an organisation that's looking to have a firm grip on Government spend.

When two police officers came to interview Jamie Bauld, a polite, friendly Down's syndrome boy with a mental age of about 5, he welcomed them with a big smile and a handshake. As the officers read him his rights and charged him with assault and racial abuse, he agreed with everything they said, then thanked them for coming to see him.

Jamie, 18, cannot tie his shoelaces or leave home on his own, nor can he understand simple verbal concepts such as whether a door is open or shut. But his parents said that he was charged with attacking a fellow student, an Asian girl who also had special needs.

The incident in question took place last September at the special needs department of Motherwell College, in Lanarkshire, where Jamie is a student. Fiona Bauld, Jamie's mother and full-time carer, claimed that the Asian student, who is only slightly older than Jamie, had been following her son and staring at him. Jamie had earlier complained to his parents that her behaviour scared him, and they had advised him just to walk away.

But one day, his mother said, the girl came close up to Jamie as he was eating lunch. He pushed her with one hand and told her to go away. Mrs Bauld said she received a phone call from the college to say that Jamie had been told off for pushing the girl, and that the girl had been reprimanded as well.

Soon after, however, the Baulds heard that a notice had been placed in a Motherwell newspaper asking for witnesses to a “racial assault” at the college on the day in question. It is not known who placed the advert but afterwards two police officers came to Jamie's house in Condorrat, Lanarkshire, and interviewed him.

Jim Bauld, Jamie's father, who was present at the interview, said: They asked Jamie if he had slapped the girl on the face and he said yes, because he thought that was what they wanted him to say – because Down's syndrome [people] always try to please. I sat and listened in absolute disbelief when they read him his rights and charged him.

Shortly after the visit came a letter from the Procurator Fiscal in Hamilton saying that the authorities now had enough evidence to charge Jamie.

It was 7½ months after the initial incident when they received a brief letter from the Procurator Fiscal to say he would not be proceeding with the prosecution. There was no apology.

Update: Newspaper Inspired Apology

See full article from the Times

[Only after adverse press coverage], the Crown Office in Scotland offered a rare apology yesterday to the family of Jamie Bauld, the Down's syndrome teenager who was accused of a racist assault.

We appreciate that the case was not concluded as quickly as it may have been and we apologise for any distress the family have suffered.

It is further understood that another factor delaying the dropping of proceedings was the reluctance of the family of the Asian girl to withdraw their complaint against Jamie, who stood accused of slapping the girl in the face and calling her “blackface”. His family say he simply pushed her because she had been following him.

The Baulds say that the incident amounted to an argument between five-year-olds and that their son does not even understand what racism means.

Politicians condemned the actions of the authorities. Paul Martin, Scottish Labour's public safety spokesman, said: This case shows a clear lack of understanding on the police's part. It is essential that they have a basic understanding of how to deal with someone with a learning disability.

Margaret Mitchell, Conservative MSP for Central Scotland, said: This is an example of legislation which has enabled common sense to fly out the window. Down's syndrome people are loving individuals who occasionally get upset but in general would do anything to try and please. The idea that they have any concept of racism is, frankly, ridiculous.

Have you got a licence for that camera?

Phil Smith thought ex-EastEnder Letitia Dean turning on the Christmas lights in Ipswich would make a good snap for his collection.

The 49-year-old started by firing off a few shots of the warm-up act on stage. But before the main attraction showed up, Smith was challenged by a police officer who asked if he had a licence for the camera.

After explaining he didn't need one, he was taken down a side-street for a formal "stop and search", then asked to delete the photos and ordered not take any more. So he slunk home with his camera.

People were still taking photos with mobile phones and pocket cameras, so maybe it was because mine looked like a professional camera with a flash on top, he says. It's a sad state of affairs today if an amateur photographer can't stand in the street taking photographs.

Austin Mitchell MP has tabled a motion in the Commons that has drawn on cross-party support from 150 other MPs, calling on the Home Office and the police to educate officers about photographers' rights.

Mitchell, himself a keen photographer, was challenged twice, once by a lock-keeper while photographing a barge on the Leeds to Liverpool canal and once on the beach at Cleethorpes.

Photographers have every right to take photos in a public place, he says, and it's crazy for officials to challenge them when there are so many security cameras around and so many people now have cameras on phones. But it's usually inexperienced officers responsible.

Steve Carroll was another hapless victim of this growing suspicion. Police seized the film from his camera while he was out taking snaps in a Hull shopping centre. They later returned it but a police investigation found they had acted correctly because he appeared to be taking photographs covertly.

And photographer enthusiast Adam Jones has started an online petition on the Downing Street website urging the prime minister to clarify the law. It has gained hundreds of supporters.

Holidaymakers to some overseas destinations will be familiar with this sort of attitude - travel guides frequently caution readers that innocently posing for a snapshot outside a government building could lead to some stern questions from local law enforcers.

But in Britain this sort of attitude is new. So what is the law?

If you are a normal person going about your business and you see something you want to take a picture of, then you are fine unless you're taking picture of something inherently private, says Hanna Basha, partner at solicitors Carter-Ruck. There are also restrictions around some public buildings, like those involved in national defence.

Child protection has been an issue for years, says Stewart Gibson of the Bureau of Freelance Photographers, but what's happened recently is a rather odd interpretation of privacy and heightened fears about terrorism: They [police, park wardens, security guards] seem to think you can't take pictures of people in public places. It's reached a point where everyone in the photographic world has become so concerned we're mounting campaigns and trying to publicise this.

There's a great deal of paranoia around but the police are on alert for anything that vaguely resembles terrorism. It's difficult because the more professional a photographer, paradoxically, the more likely they are to be stopped or questioned. If people were using photos for terrorism purposes they would be using the smallest camera possible.

The National Union of Journalists has staged a demo to highlight how media photographers are wrongly challenged by police.

In May last year, Thames Valley Police overturned a caution issued to photographer Andy Handley of the MK News in Milton Keynes, after he took pictures at the scene of a road accident.

Guidelines agreed between senior police and the media were adopted by all forces in England and Wales last year. They state that police have no power to prevent the media taking photos. They state that once images are recorded, [the police] have no power to delete or confiscate them without a court order, even if [the police] think they contain damaging or useful evidence.

And in the case of Phil Smith, an official complaint about the Christmas lights incident helped sort matters out. Not only did he receive a written apology from Suffolk Police, but also a visit from an inspector, who explained that the officer, a special constable, had acted wrongly.

A tax payer subjected to a lengthy investigation by the Revenue has set up a website to expose what he describes as its bullying, intimidation and waste.

Nick Morgan, a freelance journalist who regularly uses the self-assessment tax system, was told three years ago that an investigation had been opened into his returns. Even though the case involved only £2,500, Morgan says the investigation quickly snowballed into a nightmare.

Inspectors from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) took a forensic interest in his finances, he says, demanding to know details such as how many pieces of paper he used in correspondence and the number of business calls made to London. They even questioned him about £10 he spent on a biography of David Beckham as research for a celebrity interview.

Morgan says he was confronted with a frightening blur of figures and informed that there was a lot wrong with his tax return and that he had shown neglect. He was accused, incorrectly, of receiving undeclared payments amounting to £325.

Infuriated by the aggressive nature of the HMRC inquiries, Morgan filed a request under the 1998 Data Protection Act, which allows anyone to see most of the files held on them by HMRC. He discovered that the HMRC's internal view of his case was different from the manner in which he was treated.

I was astounded, Morgan said. In a phone call, the investigating officer had told me that things were very bad for me and I was a terrible case exhibiting gross negligence; but in her e-mails to a colleague she drew a very different picture. In one e-mail, the inspector wrote: I'm feeling a bit lost in all this . . . it's not a large settlement.

The investigation may have cost as much as £50,000, according to Stephen Camm, a former HMRC investigator who is head of tax investigations at Price Waterhouse Coopers. Yet HMRC has offered to settle with Morgan if he will pay just £2,530.

HMRC enjoys draconian powers over taxpayers. Investigations can be started at random, without evidence of wrongdoing. If a “discovery” is made, the previous 20 years of a taxpayers' finances can come under scrutiny. HMRC can levy hefty fines for offences as simple as late payment - and the burden is on the taxpayer to prove his or her innocence.

More than 99,000 taxpayers complained about HMRC last year.

Morgan concluded: HMRC have a whole range of bullying tactics. They are all legal and practised every day.

Mark Thomas led an inspired campaign against the UK government's restrictions on the right to protest. He says good riddance

…And so farewell then to the anti-protest laws, repealed with a musty splutter from Jack Straw in Parliament last week. These laws were hastily brought in an attempt to evict Brian Haw, the peace protestor in Parliament Square, from his vigil. At the time, David Blunkett (then Home Secretary) admitted: It might be a sledgehammer to crack a nut but he is a nut. Perhaps inevitably, a law introduced to clear one man from Parliament Square proved to be narrow-minded, ill conceived and in the end unworkable.

The law said that anyone who wanted to demonstrate in Parliament Square, and a designated zone around it, would have to get prior permission from the police, six days in advance. For larger demonstrations, organisers such as Stop the War were well used to talking to the police and the law did little to affect them.

Where the law really entered a Kafkaesque landscape of its own was in the smaller demos. One person with a small banner was deemed to be a demo and had to get permission. However, the police had an arbitrary power to define what was a demo. So a friend of mine was threatened with arrest for having cakes with slogans iced upon them - the word “Peace” in fact - at a picnic in the square. This was, the police insisted, an illegal demo.

The instances of bizarre bureaucracy kept piling up alongside the infringement of the right to demonstrate. So, on one hand, I had to get permission to stand holding a placard saying Support the Poppy Appeal - as this was a political demo. On the other hand, Maya Evans was famously arrested for reading out the names of the Iraqi and British war dead at the Cenotaph: she was charged under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act and found guilty of demonstrating without permission.

...Read the full article

A West Lothian town is to become the first in Scotland to ban alcohol off-sales to people under 21.

The pilot scheme in Armadale will initially run for six weeks.

Every off-sale retailer in the town has signed up to the new scheme which means anyone who looks under the age of 25 will be asked for identification.

Those who cannot prove they are at least 21 will be denied alcohol. The aim of the scheme is to prevent people from enjoying themselves

This strategy has been tried before in the north of England. Cleveland Police introduced a similar scheme and it proved so successful in spoiling youngster's fun that it was adopted permanently.

It's a very good example of a local community including fun hating shopkeepers working together to tackle what is obviously a serious problem in many parts of Scotland. The Armadale pilot is a partnership with the local council, police and retailers.

A decision on whether it should be extended to other towns will be taken once the initial six weeks have been assessed.

West Lothian councillor Isabel Hutton backed the project: This initiative will not prevent all youths getting hold of alcohol, but I am sure it will help in reducing alcohol-related, anti-social behaviour, and that will be beneficial to the Armadale community.

Pc Phillip McIntosh, of Lothian and Borders Police, said: Youth disorder is often linked to alcohol, and Armadale is no different to any other town in West Lothian, or indeed Scotland, where a minority of young people can get their hands on alcohol and often leads to anti-social behaviour. Our intention is not only to limit under-age access to alcohol but to educate those who may have been involved in supplying alcohol to children that they are committing an offence.

Sorry! The Human Rights Act has just been repealed by the Minister of Silly Walks

Danger! Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill Part 6 tries to remove even the limited constitutional safeguards of the "destroy Parliament" Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006

It looks as if we will have to again go through all the fuss and lobbying that we saw over the wretched Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, the previous attempt by this Labour Government to neuter Parliament by Order of a Minister.

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 under 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.

What happened to the supposed "super-affirmative procedure" and the whole of the debate in Parliament and in the UK political blogosphere over the wretched and controversial Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 then?

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.

The UK's treatment of asylum seekers falls seriously below the standards of a civilised society , a report says.

The Independent Asylum Commission, led by a ex-senior judge, said the system denied sanctuary to some in need and failed to remove others who should go.

It said the treatment of some asylum seekers was a shameful blemish on the UK's international reputation.

It spent a year researching the report and spoke to former home secretaries, policy makers and asylum seekers.

The commission was established after calls from community organisations and charities for an authoritative examination of asylum after a decade of political battles over immigration.

The report praised immigration officials for recent reforms to how they manage asylum applications - but it warned that a culture of disbelief was leading to perverse and unjust decisions.

The commissioners said policymakers were at times using "indefensible" threats of destitution to try to force some asylum seekers to leave the UK.

See full article from the Scotsman

Meanwhile pressure is mounting on the UK Government to reverse its decision to deport a gay Syrian teenager from Scotland to his homeland, where he faces almost certain imprisonment and torture.

Scotland on Sunday revealed last week that 19-year-old Jojo Jako Yakob was being held in Polmont Young Offenders' Institution awaiting deportation, despite evidence he had been tortured almost to death in Syria, where homosexuality is illegal.

Shirley-Anne Somerville, a Nationalist MSP for the Lothians, has lodged a parliamentary motion in support of our campaign to let Yakob stay in the country. It has already been supported by several MSPs.

Pete Wishart MP, the SNP's home affairs spokesman, has taken up the case at Westminster and has vowed to make representations to the Home Office.

He said: After Mr Yakob's terrible ordeal in Syria, it is unacceptable that the Home Office would consider sending him back. There is a very real risk that he would suffer further ill treatment or even possibly death. He has sought asylum in Scotland and I will make an immediate representation to the Home Office in an effort to overturn their ruling before his final hearing in May.

Yakob has appealed against the Home Office deportation order and has instructed top Scottish QC Mungo Bovey to fight his case. Yakob will appear before a full immigration hearing in Glasgow on May 7, when his fate will be determined.

Jojo fled his homeland two years ago after surviving a harrowing ordeal at the hands of Syrian police and prison guards, when he was arrested for distributing anti-government leaflets. Following his transfer from police interrogation, prison guards soon discovered that Jojo, a member of the repressed Kurdish minority in the Arab state, was homosexual. He then suffered horrific beatings and was assaulted so badly that he fell into a coma.

Our dear UK government has left us open to fascist, illegal intimidation by private companies, and have done it by the backdoor.

I cannot believe that the UK public are not up in arms about this - the government have just literally sold all our freedoms down the river.

For those unfamiliar, Berly Brazier was a 61 year old woman who committed suicide after receiving persistent debt collection agency letters.

If the government's idea comes in to employ Intrum Justitia and private collection firms like it, then you can expect to see a lot more Beryl Braziers for years to come.

Listening to this, do you still think that this government should be trusted with bringing in the much-reviled idea of national identity cards?

Even taking into account what this government have done in the past, nobody can let this shocking proposal go through. Take a stand -- write to your local MP, your local paper, do whatever it takes to stop this.

The legal age for buying alcohol could be raised to 21 under proposals being examined by the Scottish Government.

Ministers are considering raising the minimum age from 18.

Shona Robison, the public health minister, is due to present a number of proposals later in the year.  Robison yesterday said nothing had yet been ruled in or out: The Scottish Government is currently in the process of developing a long-term alcohol strategy and as part of this we have been looking at a range of issues including availability, accessibility and age of purchase.

People in Scotland are twice as likely to die from alcohol-related deaths than elsewhere in the UK.

The gay Iranian teenager who's partner was executed in Iran for being gay is to be allowed to stay in Britain because his case is now so notorious that it would be dangerous to deport him to Tehran.

Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, granted Mehdi Kazemi a temporary reprieve yesterday as she announced that his case would be reconsidered when he returns from the Netherlands [where he lost his case to claim asylum there]. In reality, the case of Kazemi has now received so much publicity in Europe that if he were sent back to Iran, there would be a real risk of him facing persecution.

Smith intervened after receiving representations from MPs and peers alarmed that Kazemi, 19, could face execution if returned to his homeland. In a statement, Smith said: Following representations made on behalf of Mehdi Kazemi, and in the light of new circumstances since the original decision was made, I have decided that Mr Kazemi’s case should be reconsidered on his return to the UK from the Netherlands.

More than 60 peers had signed a letter to the Home Secretary urging the Government to halt the deportation.

Borg Palm, Kazemi’s solicitor in the Netherlands, welcomed the news but said that it would give his client a future only if he was granted asylum: He is very much afraid of being allowed to stay in Britain but without being granted official permission. That would then put him in a no man’s land. He would be very unhappy in the long term.

A relative of Kazemi, who lives in London but asked not to be named, told The Times that the teenager would be relieved: It has been a long time coming and a very long struggle,. What I do not understand is why the Government got itself into this mess in the first place. It should always have recognised that gay people are killed for being themselves in Iran.

Britishness is... Emigrating to somewhere better

Young people leaving school would take part in ceremonies to mark their move from students of citizenship to active citizenship , says a Government review by Lord Goldsmith.

The former attorney general said the events would involve swearing an oath either to the Queen as head of state, or to the nation: The ceremony should be seen as a key stage in engaging a young person in the life of the community and the responsibilities of citizenship .

As an incentive to making this transition, students would be encouraged to join a National Citizens' Corps and take part in civil activity.

There is also a suggestion to add an additional public holiday to celebrate Britishness.

Although the United Kingdom's constituent nations each has a saint's day, only St Patrick's Day (March 17) is a public holiday, in Northern Ireland.

But Lord Goldsmith does not want a date laden with historical significance. His preferred model is Australia Day, which is used to celebrate what it means to be an Australian, the achievements of the country and…to identify the improvements that can be made.

An Iranian lesbian who fled to Britain after her girlfriend was arrested and sentenced to death faces being forcibly returned after losing the latest round in her battle to be granted asylum.

The case of Pegah Emambakhsh, 40, comes a day after The Independent reported on the growing public outcry over the plight of a gay Iranian teenager who fears he will be executed if he is deported to Iran.

Both cases have provoked international protests against Britain and led to calls for an immediate moratorium on the deportation of gay and lesbian asylum-seekers who fear they will be persecuted in Iran.

More than 60 MEPs have signed a petition asking Gordon Brown to reverse the decision on Mehdi Kazemi, 19, who escaped to the Netherlands after the Home Office refused him asylum last year. His case is still before Dutch judges who will decide this month whether he should return to Britain where he faces deportation to a country which has already executed his boyfriend.

A gay teenager who sought sanctuary in Britain when his boyfriend was executed by the Iranian authorities now faces the same fate after losing his legal battle for asylum.

Mehdi Kazemi, 19, came to London to study English in 2004 but later discovered that his boyfriend had been arrested by the Iranian police, charged with sodomy and hanged.

In a telephone conversation with his father in Tehran, Kazemi was told that before the execution in April 2006, his boyfriend had been questioned about sexual relations he had with other men and under interrogation had named Kazemi as his partner.

Fearing for his own life if he returned to Iran, Kazemi claimed asylum in Britain. But late in 2007 his case was refused. Terror-stricken at the prospect of deportation the young Iranian made a desperate attempt to evade deportation and fled Britain for Holland where he is now being detained amid a growing outcry from campaigners.

He appeared before a Dutch court yesterday to plead with the authorities not to return him to Britain where he is almost certain to be sent back to Iran.

In a letter to the British Government, Kazemi has told the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith: I wish to inform the Secretary of State that I did not come to the UK to claim asylum. I came here to study and return to my country. But in the past few months my situation back home has changed. The Iranian authorities have found out that I am a homosexual and they are looking for me. If I return to Iran I will be arrested and executed like my former boyfriend.

Kazemi's future will now be decided by a Dutch appeal court, which will rule whether to grant him permission to apply for asylum in Holland, which offers special protection to gay Iranians, or whether he will be deported to Britain. His case has attracted support from leading gay rights groups across Europe who are campaigning to allow him to live in Britain.

Peter Tatchell, of the gay rights campaign group Outrage, described the Government's policy as outrageous and shameful. If Mehdi is sent back to Iran he will be at risk of execution because of his homosexuality. This is a flagrant violation of Britain's obligations under the refugee convention.

It is just the latest example of the Government putting the aims of cutting asylum numbers before the merits of individual cases. The whole world knows that Iran hangs young, gay men and uses a particularly barbaric method of slow strangulation. In a bid to fulfil its target to cut asylum numbers the Government is prepared to send this young man to his possible death. It is a heartless, cruel mercenary anti-refugee policy.

The Home Office's own guidance issued to immigration officers concedes that Iran executes homosexual men but, unaccountably, rejects the claim that there is a systematic repression of gay men and lesbians.

Enjoying a pint. So setting a bad example for the kids. They should be locked up. Just like everyone else in Britain.

Children caught trying to buy alcohol from Asda, one of the UK's major supermarkets will face prosecution, it has been announced.

The company says its will urge officers to take the offender to court. If they refuse, Asda says it will consider bringing a private prosecution.

The chance of an under-age drinker being punished for trying to buy alcohol was only one in 300,000 last year, when nearly 3million offences resulted in ten prosecutions.

The current system is clearly not effective enough, said an Asda spokesman. When anyone under-age is found trying to buy alcohol in one of our stores we will call the police and urge and expect the police to take action themselves. If no action is taken we will on some occasions bring our own prosecution. In most cases this will target repeat offenders."

The offence carries a maximum fine of £1,000, but Asda said its main aim in bringing a court case would be to act as a deterrent: We are giving offenders a clear message that we have the right to prosecute them ourselves even if the police decide not to prosecute .

Last autumn a small English congregation was rocked by the news that two of its parishioners had fled abroad. A 56-year-old man had helped his pregnant wife to flee from social workers, who had already taken her son into care and were threatening to seize their baby.

Most people had no idea why. For the process that led this couple to such a desperate act was entirely secret. The local authority had warned the mother not to talk to her friends or even her MP. The judge who heard the arguments from social services sat in secret. The open-minded social workers who had initially been assigned to sort out a custody battle between the woman and her previous husband were replaced by others who seemed determined to build a guilty case against her. That is how the secret State operates. A monumental injustice has been perpetrated in this quiet corner of England; our laws are being used to try to cover it up.

...Read full article

Enjoying a pint. So setting a bad example for the kids. They should be locked up. Just like everyone else in Britain.

Thousands of children face having a criminal record if they are caught holding a can of beer, under plans being considered by ministers.

The proposals would mean that any under-18s found by police with alcohol would receive a criminal conviction, which would have to be declared to future employers.

Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, said earlier this month that ministers were looking at tightening confiscation rules which allow police officers to remove alcohol from teenagers.

However, yesterday Vernon Coaker, the Home Office minister, took the move further by saying that officials were examining whether to make possession of alcohol by someone under 18 a criminal offence . Coaker revealed that a review of how police deal with problem drinking would consider whether children caught with alcohol should get criminal records.

It's something we are not saying we are going to do, but it is something that has been raised with us, he said.

Under the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997, police can confiscate cans of lager or bottles of wine if they reasonably believe that teenagers are drinking, or are about to drink, the alcohol.

The most likely sanction is a fine but officials are also deciding whether these fines should become part of a criminal record.

Campaigners warned against criminalising teenagers just for having one can of lager or bottle of wine on their way to a party.

Frank Soodeen, from Alcohol Concern, said: We are concerned about the unnecessary criminalisation of young people for drinking. The fact is that large numbers of kids are getting their alcohol from older friends and relations.

Police have been given the go-ahead to use potentially lethal Taser stun guns against children.

The relaxing of restrictions on the use of the weapons comes despite warnings that they could trigger a heart attack in youngsters.

Until now, Tasers, which emit a 50,000-volt electric shock, have been used only by specialist officers as a "non lethal" alternative to firearms. Tasers work by firing metal barbs into the skin which then discharge an electrical charge.

However, they can now be used against all potentially violent offenders even if they are unarmed. It is the decision not to ban their use against minors that is likely to raise serious concerns.

Home Office Police Minister Tony McNulty said medical assessments had confirmed the risk of death or serious injury from Tasers was "low". But he failed to mention Government advisers had also warned of a potential risk to children.

The Defence Scientific Advisory Council medical committee told the Home Office that not enough was known about the health risks of using the weapons against children. The committee, which is made up of independent scientists and doctors, said that limited research suggested there was a risk children could suffer "a serious cardiac event".

It recommended that officers should be "particularly vigilant" for any Taser-induced adverse response and said guidance should be amended to identify children and adults of small stature as being at potentially greater risk from the cardiac effects of Tasers.

The Government scientists were also asked to test whether the weapons could cause a miscarriage if used on a pregnant woman. While not saying whether police would be allowed to Taser an expectant mother, the Home Office said the DSAC committee had "specifically asked" for computer simulations to be carried out to analyse the effect on "a pregnant female".

Amnesty International claims Tasers have been responsible for 220 deaths in America since 2001. Many cities and police forces there have banned their use against minors. Two years ago in Chicago a 14-year-old boy went into cardiac arrest after being shot with one. Medics had to use a defibrillator four times to resuscitate him.

White candidates should be barred from standing for Parliament in up to eight constituencies in order to get more black and Asian MPs elected, says a controversial report commissioned by Labour's deputy leader, Harriet Harman.

Positive discrimination is illegal in the UK, but the report concludes that, without a change in the law allowing parties to impose all-black shortlists, it would take more than 75 years for Britain's ethnic make-up to be fairly reflected at Westminster.

Harman is understood to be still considering the report's findings in detail, but has expressed personal support for a change.

Simon Woolley of Operation Black Vote and the author of the review, said talented candidates were not 'getting past go' at the moment.

His report is understood to conclude that all-black shortlists would be needed for two decades, after which talented candidates could be expected to make it on their own. It identifies 100 constituencies with large ethnic minority communities as prime targets for shortlists, but concludes that positive discrimination would be needed in only four to eight of those seats for four elections in a row to ensure that the proportion of ethnic minority MPs matches the proportion in the population.

Woolley's findings are likely to be controversial, with any proposal to change the law risking a rough ride in the Commons. Last week, former minister Keith Vaz introduced a backbench bill proposing all-black shortlists, which was instantly condemned by Tory backbencher Philip Davies as 'politically correct' and divisive.

However, Vaz is lobbying Harman for the measure to be included in a bill on equality issues later this year - meaning it could be on the statute book by 2009. She is the person who has a huge history of supporting these issues, he added.

Woolley's report was commissioned by Harman last autumn to examine the merits of positive discrimination. Only 2% of MPs are black or Asian, compared with more than 7% of the general population.

UK Smokers could be forced to pay for a Government tobacco licence in order to carry on buying cigarettes under draconian proposals being considered by ministers.

Government advisers have drawn up plans for a smoking permit - similar to the one needed to watch TV - which all smokers would have to carry.

Health experts have welcomed the move, pointing out that Britons are more likely to die from smoking-related diseases than those in any other European country. But the idea has triggered a furious backlash from smokers' groups, who claim it is evidence of a "bully state".

Under the plans, anyone who refused to pay for a permit would be banned from buying cigarettes from any outlet.

Although a licence could cost as little as £10 a year, forms would be made deliberately complex to deter people from applying.

Smokers could also be forced to obtain a doctor's signature, declaring their health was not at "massive risk" from their habit.

The scheme is the brainchild of Julian Le Grand, a professor at the London School of Economics, who heads the ministerial advisory board, Health England. He claimed the idea would help many smokers break the habit if they had to make a decision whether to "opt in".

Dr Chaand Nagpaul, GP representative on the British Medical Association"s public health committee, said asking doctors to police the permits would be "unworkable". For each smoker to see their GP to renew a licence would mean 25million extra appointments a year, he claimed.

A case is heading for a jury trial at a crown court: the notorious mother of three Kate Badger of Wolverhampton is charged with throwing an apple core out the window of her car.

Rather, the malefactor is charged with nothing so minor, but with knowingly causing the deposit of controlled waste, namely an apple core, on land which did not have a waste management licence . If convicted, the evildoer could be fined a paltry £20,000 or be imprisoned for a scant six months.

The defiant Badger maintains her innocence. By the lady's account, she went shopping and left a friend in her car - a casual friend, she says, with whom she has since lost touch. She noticed a council worker nearby, who must have been the intrepid champion of the public good who took down her registration number and reported the vile crime to Wolverhampton council.

The 26-year-old subsequently received a lenient £60 fine by post. Our unrepentant reprobate refused to pay it. Displaying shameless disrespect for the hallowed rule of law, Badger has scoffed to reporters, I think it is a ridiculous charge because apples are biodegradable, and it's not as if we are talking about a huge bag of rubbish.

The case has already been running for 11 months and has consumed thousands of pounds in legal fees. Instead of telling everyone to grow up, go home and stop wasting the court's time and the taxpayers' money, magistrates agreed to send the matter to a higher court.

In an indictment which could have come straight from the wildest Beachcomber flight of fancy, she is accused of knowingly causing the deposit of controlled waste, namely an apple core, on land which did not have a waste management licence and of failing to provide information" as to who did throw said apple core, contrary to Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

This whole case is a complete fiasco.

But this isn't about litter, it's about the exercise of power. There's been a lot of talk about the surveillance state this week and the usual the innocent have nothing to fear platitudes. These are the same people sifting through your refuse for the "wrong kind" or rubbish and planting microchips in wheelie bins.

Now we've even got the use of cameras and numberplate recognition software to track down someone who may or may not have dropped a half-eaten apple.

This hasn't got anything to do with keeping the streets clean, otherwise they'd employ a few more road-sweepers and dustmen. They'd rather spend the money on inspectors, enforcers and elaborate spy technology.

As I've said time and again, it's about punishment, control and showing us who's boss.

They'll resort to any justification. Thus, Miss Badger isn't merely a suspected litter lout, she's an Enemy of the Earth, single-handedly slaughtering polar bears, and must be charged as if she were fly-tipping asbestos.

Update: Wolverhampton Council Rotten to the Core

20th April 2008, Based on article from the Daily Mail

A woman charged with illegally dumping an apple core has had her case thrown out of court.

Kate Badger refused to pay a £60 fine for littering, saying she was not responsible. She instead asked to stand trial before a jury at Crown Court - risking a maximum sentence of a £20,000 fine or six months in prison for a trumped up commercial offence.

But the case was dropped less than a week before it was due to go to trial, because the prosecution offered no evidence.

Last night Wolverhampton City Council faced angry criticism for wasting taxpayers' money.

A council spokesman said the charge was withdrawn after Miss Badger finally provided her legal team with the name of the friend. He said: This matter could have been easily resolved if Ms Badger had either paid the fixed penalty notice or told us who was responsible for dropping the litter. We make no apology for taking action against those who break the law.

Mark Wallace, of the Taxpayers Alliance, said: This is an appalling use of power and a complete waste of money.

Sometimes, though, the bobby on the beat acts in a way that only feeds the growing belief that the police are the enemy.

At Christmas 2006, Frank Gibson was driving back from midnight mass to his home in Gravesend in Kent. He claimed he took his car, within the speed limit, into the middle of the road to avoid parked cars, as one does. A police car behind started to flash its lights. Since Mr Gibson believed he was doing nothing wrong, he assumed the officers were not trying to stop him. However, they were.

He stopped as soon as he safely could and turned off his engine. He has since told friends that he tried to wind down his window but, it being electric and his engine being off, it would not open.

The prosecution claimed he refused to get out of the car and was "persistently confrontational and argumentative". The officer opened his door, removed his car keys and hauled him out. The hauling out is important. For, you see, Mr Gibson was 81 and, having just had an operation on his ankle, he walked with a stick.

If you remain to be convinced of how small a threat Mr Gibson is to society, and indeed to the burly officer about a third of his age who hoiked him out of his car, let me also state the following for the record.

As well as being in his eighties and frail, Mr Gibson is the governor of two schools, a trustee of two charities, has a fine war record, worked as a district officer and magistrate in Africa, has been a borough and county councillor for many years and Mayor of Gravesham, and received the OBE for service to his community. As his barrister told a court, he is a man of "previous exceptional character".

None of this would have been known to Pc Steven Cole and Pc Thomas McGregor of the Kent Constabulary when he was dragged out of his car.

Mr Gibson, who was convinced he had been doing nothing wrong, who was bemused at being treated in this fashion and no doubt rather alarmed, is then alleged to have assaulted these two brave officers.

This arthritic old man allegedly twisted Pc Cole's thumb so hard that it made him "yelp". Possibly even worse, Pc McGregor was shoved in the chest.

Who can blame them, subjected as they were to such a vicious attack, for bundling Mr Gibson into their car, handcuffing him and locking him in a cell for five hours? The public - and police officers - manifestly have to be protected from savages such as Mr Gibson.

Mr Gibson claimed he was driving slowly in the middle of the road because it was the middle of the night, and he was trying to avoid hitting any of the parked cars. He passed a breathalyser. He could have been bound over to keep the peace, but refused, for it would have meant admitting guilt.

So the case went to court to, I hear, the embarrassment of the Kent police and the chagrin of the county's police authority. Still protesting his innocence and after two hearings spread out over many months, Mr Gibson was fined £910 and given a six-month conditional discharge last week.

The bench said he had "allowed his temper to get the better of him". Kent crown prosecution service said that the officers' behaviour was ''not unreasonable, but proportionate".

I would submit that no story about the apparent insensitivity of the police should cause us to hate them as a class, not even this one, though my God it comes close.

I know there will be many decent officers as outraged, shocked and appalled as I am by Pc Cole's and Pc McGregor's treatment of Mr Gibson. Is this how they train them in Kent? Do they bother to tell them that elderly people are often slow, easily confused, easily frightened, above all vulnerable?

I don't care what wonderful careers Pcs Cole and McGregor might have had. By this one act of heavy-handedness, they have raised disturbing questions about how officers are trained to exercise discretion. This case has made it that little bit easier for the respectable classes to withdraw their support from the police in general.

An amateur photographer has told how police seized his film as he was out taking snaps in a Hull shopping centre.

Steve Carroll, of Kent, was visiting relatives in Hull in December when he decided to do some "street photography" in the city's Prospect Centre.

Shoppers reported him to the police, who took his film because he seemed to be operating in "a covert manner".

Carroll lodged a complaint against Humberside Police but an investigation concluded its officers acted correctly. Officers have common law powers of seizure, a force spokeswoman said.

Having developed Mr Carroll's pictures, the force conceded that none of the material was out of the ordinary.

Carroll, from Sittingbourne, said all the pictures were taken quite openly and were of people engaged in everyday activities. He stressed that none of the images was of children.

A Humberside Police spokeswoman said: Camera film was seized by Humberside Police following complaints from members of the public about photos being taken in the area of the Prospect Centre. Any person who appears to be taking photos in a covert manner should expect to be stopped and spoken to by police to enquire into what their business is. Humberside Police would expect other officers within the force to act in the same manner if given a similar situation.