This is a rather gloomy public service announcement.
I wrote about the Serious Crime Bill in January. Since, it has proceeded quietly through the House of Lords, almost unchanged. Yesterday, so suddenly that I did not know it had happened, and was talking today about how NO2ID should brief MPs for its appearance, it received its Second Reading in the House of Commons. It is amazing that there has been no large scale protest about this
If you live in the UK (or are a voting ex-pat), you have a few weeks to write to your MP before it becomes law.
Update:
In response to popular demand, some more information. Here are:
On Part I of the Bill, a briefing note on Serious Crime Prevention Orders from the Conservative Liberty Forum.
On Part II, a somewhat more technical briefing (pdf)on the mindboggling abolition and replacement of incitement at common law from Liberty.
On Part III, A briefing I wrote (pdf) on the data-sharing aspects for NO2ID.
Which may collectively clarify what I’m going on about. Or not. But take my word for it, this is very bad indeed. Worse than ID cards. If you have an MP, write to them.
When contemplating emigration, one faces the moral choice of whether to stay in UK and fight the fast encroaching Police State, or fly the coop, seek one’s fortune in the Colonies and risk being labelled a “rat leaving the sinking ship”. A dilemma easily resolved when you examine the apathetic “useful idiots” you propose to protest on behalf of. The vast majority of UK citizens so lack any semblance of politically consciousness they would quite literally march into the concentration camp before realising that something was wrong. Face it, if they haven’t emigrated yet they must be risk averse, so no way are they going to stick their necks out. So why risk getting a criminal record protesting on behalf of people that would not appreciate your efforts and almost certainly consider you a deranged trouble-maker? Realise sooner rather than later that there is a big wide world out there and as an English gentleman (generic) you have opportunities coming out of your ears. Sure, the government wants the non-Labour supporters to emigrate and replace them with Labour-voting immigrants. It’s part of the cunning plan to keep Labour in power indefinitely. And as anyone that has tried to get an overseas postal vote will tell you, there is already de-facto disenfranchisement. But just because the government wants you to go is no reason not to oblige them. It’s known as “win-win”. You only go round once (unless you’re Buddhist), and seriously there is no glamour or percentage in the dissident movement. Doubtless you’ll strongly disagree with me today, but within a year or so, start to swing behind this opinion.
Oddly, it appears much of the bill exempts Scotland, or provide special provision there. I assume this is a sop to the devolved nature of the place these days.
Don’t flee to this colony (Australia), we already have “control orders” and suchlike here which effectively reverse the presumption of innocence. And here I was hoping to flee to the UK with my dual citizenship… sigh.
I think you have inadvertantly demonstrated it Patrick.
You presumed that there was something wrong with the posting mechanism i.e. guilt.
Hence the multiple post. When in fact it’s just bloody slow lately and we all experience it!
Patience!
Wait till you’ve had 5 smite controls in a row and see how much hair you have left to tear.
Oh god… I do apologise! (will only post this once and assume it gets through, despite scary error messages)
Not to worry. Quadruplication dealt with. – GH
Strangely enough, the major religions have contradictory beliefs about guilt and innocence. Christianity says we’re all born guilty,stained by original sin, whereas Mohamadism beliefs we’re good except for momentary lapses which repentence will soon fix. Buddhism believes that if you’re here, you must be lacking in some essential knowledge, or you would be in, and want to stay in, Nirvana.
Judaism doesn’t believe in Original Sin, but you can repent when you sin, and that clears the slate.
In this instance, the state is aligning with a Christian belief, that nobody is innocent. Islam, anyone?
It is tempting to see this as an expression of Blairite Christianity, but I think it is a wider form of authoritarian certitude. There are buried in this the assumptions that people are readily to be divided into Good People and Bad People, and the authorities can readily determine which, so that all that is necessary for a good society is enough power in the hands of the authorities to control Bad People and stop them doing bad things.
That’s a common position among the religiose of all faiths – who of course assume themselves to be Good People and infallibly equipped to spot and correct Bad People. It doesn’t require a doctrine of original sin.
But surely the authoritarian notion of a ‘Good Person’ is just a ‘Bad Person’ who either has yet to do something bad or has done something bad and is yet to be found out, hence the need for closer observation of ‘Good People’?
I think it is also Napoleonic, in that you are not allowed unless they say so, similarly you are not free unless they say you are. It is all part of reinforcing the idea of who “owns your ass” – i.e. the State. Given the nature of Statism and taxation, productive people are becoming indentured servants.
Terry,
Where would you go? Things seem to be going downhill in all parts of what used to be the reasonably free world.
So five years in prison if an (appointed) judge thinks that one has been “involved in serious crime”.
I remembered what you had written before Guy (at least I thought I did) so I followed the link to make sure, but it would have been good for you to repeat the basic point in the posting you wrote (as it stands it does not mean anything on its own).
As for Bill itself, clearly evil – just what should be expected in the modern United Kingdom.
I wonder how this fits in with the international (U.N.) declarartion on human rights, and the European convention (put into Scottish, English and Welsh and Ulster courts by the Human Rights Act).
I despise these documents (partly because they international, partly because they are vague, and partly because they contain “positive” rights) however if the various conventions and what not do not outlaw the “Serious Crime Bill” it is hard to see what the point of them is.
Of course if one convention or other does outlaw the Bill – well then I will have to say something nice about them.
What is the position of David Davis (Conservative party shadow for this area of government – for those who do not know) on the Serious Crime Bill?
It would be interesting to see which way he jumps.
Of course if Mr Cameron makes a strong stand opposing the Bill I will have to say something nice about him – which would irritate me, but my irritation is a price worth paying.
There are decent Labour M.P.s (both members of the House of Commons and House of Lords) they may be the key factor in defeating this Bill – if it is defeated.
How does one know a “bad person?” Do they have a different odor? I like the idea of differentiating based upon their actions, in theory, but which actions make someone “bad?” What about the doctor who spends 80 hours a week treating poor patients for free? Is he good? What about when I end up in his living room at 3AM asking why his wife has a broken jaw? Did that suddenly make him bad? If the fact that he’s now a felon makes him bad, then let’s say he didn’t anyone. Instead, he got his driver’s license revoked or suspended for whatever, five times since 2001, and I catch him driving drunk. Again, is he bad? He’s again a felon, but “bad” in some broad theological sense?
(I think having a criminal code and an enforcement mechanism is a good idea, obviously. IMHO, though, developing such is a pragmatic exercise and not a moral one, or at least it should be pragmatic and not moral. I’ve no problem with stringent laws against beating a spouse, but see no justification to regulating the private sex acts of consenting adults, for instance.)
I don’t know whether I actually believe in original sin in the theological sense. FWIW, I think that, if true, it means that people are inherently imperfect rather than Bad People(TM). I will tell you, though, that everybody has something that he wants to forget and something that makes him lay awake and stare at the ceiling sometimes. I think that’s frankly just part of the human condition.
To steer this back, imagine the Met being called to a domestic disturbance in some government housing in London. On arrival, they find a husband with a load on, a cut on his right second knuckle, raving about how the bitch just wouldn’t shut up. They find his wife crying in the other room with a black eye, and not capable of giving a coherent account.
Imagine this particular council estate to be #10 Downing St. Blair seems convinced enough of his absolute rightness that other people’s wishes and beliefs and humanity can be disregarded. I bet that smug son of a bitch sleeps just fine, even though he of all people shouldn’t.
(If you don’t like an American to comment on UK politics, then substitute Presidente Jorge for Tony, Laura for Cherie, #10 for 1600 Pennsylvania, etc.)
I think it is quite easy to spot at least some of the “Bad People” Sunfish.
For example, if a person thinks it is O.K. for someone to be sent to prison for up to five years because some judge “is satisfied” that they have been “involved” in “serious crime” somewhere in the world, then the person who thinks this is O.K. is clearly bad.
So five years in prison if an (appointed) judge thinks that one has been “involved in serious crime”.
It’s worse than that, Paul. The five years in prison is for breach of an SCPO. The SCPO arises if on the balance of probabilities one is held to be “involved in serious crime” (which doesn’t require any offence to have occured, or any intent on your part).
So if, for example, one’s SCPO were to ban one from using the internet – on the basis that some court had at some stage been convinced this was a reasonable way of preventing one communicating with others deemed to be criminals and thereby facilitating their possible future crimes – one could go to gaol for five years for reading Samizdata.
I agree with Tim C. It does look Napoleonic in nature and origin – edging towards continental practices to fit in maybe?
Imagine you are at an airport. You hear a shout and turn round as someone rushes past you.
A police officer chasing him trips over you, thus allowing his quarry to escape.
I am not a legal expert and stand to be corrected if someone knows better – but on the face of it looks as if you could end up doing five years without trial for that.
I have written to my MP. It will be interesting to see what his position on the Bill is.
Phil A, you’ve missed the point in the same way Paul does above. It is so alien as to take some digesting.
SCPOs (like ASBOs before them) are a way of changing the law arbitrarily as it affects specific individuals; they wouldn’t be a means of arbitrarily gaoling anyone for something they have done. Their scope and severity is vastly greater than that of ASBOs, however – not least because there’s no need for any ‘serious crime’ (itself an arbitrary creation of a very long schedule that may be amended by regulation) actually to have occurred for an Order to be issued.
Casual and inadvertent conduct might easily give rise to an SCPO, but you need to be targetted prospectively by the authorities. It is conduct while under a SCPO in breach of its terms that is punishable. Which means an SCPO can for a specific individual make anything the court deems fit, an offence bearing a five-year prison sentence.
So in your hypothetical case, someone who at the time of the incident was under an SCPO forbidding them from obstructing a police officer, or being in an airport, might well face five years. But the normal passer-by wouldn’t. Note too that an SCPO on obstructing a police officer (usually no more than 1 month’s imprisonment), is likely to be prejudicial, since the fact of an SCPO in those terms would be likely encourage a jury to think, that this is the sort of person who obstructs police officers.
Until the self-proclaimed guardians of liberty can make a simple point simply using plain speaking, this country is screwed.
Well, I have been trying to understand this issue, by reading Guy’s paper on Part III, the Bill itself, and some other relevant papers. It is not working for me! Then I read Pietr’s comment, and got thinking.
It strikes me as not unreasonable (but you may disagree) that every Member of Parliament, Commons and Lords, should be allowed time to consider each and every bill (and statutory instrument) put before them, including all appropriate briefing notes in white papers etc. After all, each MP is elected to consider fully the interests of his/her constituents; how can he/she do this without reading and considering the whole of every new bill that is to be added to the law of the land?
Now, how much legislation might they be able to cope with?
If we allow one quarter of working time for said purpose (excluding house debates and committee considerations), and MPs and Lords do have other responsibilities, and allow for 220 effective working days per year, 7 hours per day), this comes out at 1,540 hours per year.
If they allow 5 seconds average (a very tight allowance) for consideration of each word to be read, understood and considered for revision (remember here that we are passing laws, so some thought is appropriate on every word), the annual allowance for consideration comes out at 1,108,800 words of legislation (and perhaps too of immediately and highly relevant explanatory briefing documents).
So, how many words do they actually have to consider every year?
Well, I guess a “tad more”. Does anyone actually know?
And if it is a “tad more”, do all those Members of Parliament consider they are doing a good job? And, if not, what are they going to do about it? And, in that case, why have they not done it already?
Best regards
A suggestion for something to do when the bill passes, because like it or not it will pass, is for everyone to go to their nearest police station and give themselves up for being involved in serious crime. We are all no doubt partly responsible for making serious crime possible somewhere in the world, and so must all be guilty, and so must all be punished. Lets see how their system deals with that.
I remember Guy.
For example:
“Five years for walking in the park?!”
“Yes – it is in the park that you meet your evil friends to plot serious crimes, we ordered you not to walk in the park again”.
“But I have never been convicted of any crime”
“What has that got to do with it?”
‘ fly the coop, seek one’s fortune in the Colonies and risk being labelled a “rat leaving the sinking ship”.’
Terry,
Don’t let it bother you. Those rats are commonly referred to as ‘survivors’ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Try Japan, my fine fellows. Japanese spouse (model girl look, model girl figure, tall, accomplished, sassy) is hardly the ultimate sacrifice. Visa problems melt away. And remember, you don’t have to take on the sins of your host nation. Of course, if you have a Western wife and family your choices are somewhat limited, aka feet nailed to the ground. In Asia, English gentleman (generic) is flavour of the month. It’s all about you, and as a white, native English speaker you would be hard put to find a warmer welcome than Japan. Or as it was put to me, “I’d never live here if I were Japanese”.
Pietr,
Unfortunately there are a few things standing in the way of that.
1. Most of the “human rights” establishment are mushy lefties with no idea that the sentiments they express and the way they express themselves don’t engage – and often put off – ordinary people.
2. The enemy is smart, and uses deceptive plain language to pre-empt opposition. Only a criminal would be against a Serious Crime Bill, or a traitor against a US-PATRIOT Act, it is hinted. Presentation is designed to provoke presumption; the actual effects may be different from the broad impression the public takes, and the aggressor has an advantage in the world of spin.
3. Complication and abstraction obscure the dangers further. Who automatically understands the implications of a non-textual ammendment to an obscure bit of legislation, or a sweeping replacement of a complex area of common law? Who can challenge it without attempting to explain what’s wrong with it? That a couple of smart motivated Samizdata readers above took a moment to get the very simplest principle in this nasty Bill shows how difficult communication is.
Nigel,
After two years of lobbying, I am sure that most MPs do not read the legislation they are voting on at all. They rely on partial (in both senses) briefings produced by their parties. Most never hear the debate (between front-bench teams and eccentrics with actual knowledge or interest) on most of what they vote on.
I am not convinced that every minister promoting legislation has read or understands it. They are apt to rely on departmental briefs. (Which is one reason apart from propaganda for the same dubious assertions being recycled repeatedly after being discredited – they don’t always know when they are lying.) Some legislation is impossible for any individual to understand. There’s an example every year: the Finance Act.
Standing committees (10 members) do consider Bills in detail, but they are also heavily timetabled, so do not consider the whole legislation. The majority on every committee is appointed by Government whips.
All this goes for primary legislation. The bulk of law making is carried out through statutory instrument, where the situation is worse. Parties make policy, Whitehall makes laws. Parliament is supreme, but supine.
J – no, the absence of Scotland from this bill merely reflects the fact that Scotland has a separate legal system.
In due course – sooner rather than later, I expect – there will be a matching “Serious Crime (Scotland) Bill”, containing all the same provisions but written in the language of Scots law.
It happens with every major Act of Parliament.
Guy,
You have summed up the British political system very well.
The vast majority of MP’s vote on divisions as they are told, without knowing anything about the bill they are voting on. They vote purely on party lines. I would argue they are obtaining money by deception.
Whenever I have heard a debate on a subject which I know about, I have often been appalled at the sheer ignorance expressed by most MP’s speaking. They blithely pontificate about things they know nothing about. I recall one time hearing Roy Hattersley speak, and he was so smug, pompous and absolutely ignorant that I just wanted to grab him by his flabby neck and wring the life out of him.
The whole process is a mockery. Most backbench MP’s are a waste of space, and as you point out, many ministers are too, they just parrot their departmental briefs. ID cards are a very good case in point. The Whitehall establishment have been after them since the 80’s at least. The idea has been floated time after time, but never got anywhere. Eventually a bunch of immature control freaks are elected to power, and voila, you have an idea whose time has come. Once the establishment latches on to such an idea, they simply wait and wait, and try and try, until eventually it comes to pass.
Criminal law is a devolved matter in Scotland, and the Scottish Parliament has shown that it isn’t keen on this measure. Not so unkeen that it doesn’t propose to make breach of an SCPO an offence in Scotland too, however. se e here for a bit of discussion. The Salmond administration can be expected to care more about civil liberties then its New Labour predecessor.
Note quite a lot of the Bill (the data-sharing bits) will apply in Scotland, nonetheless.
John K,
Thank you for your kind words. (There was a post I didn’t get round to finishing called “Inside the sausage-factory” recounting my appearance before the Public Bills Committee on the UK Borders Bill, so I have more to say on the subject.)
I must depart from you on one point, however:
The Whitehall establishment have been after them since the 80’s at least.
Try 1915. Really very worth reading is:
http://www.historyandpolicy.org/archive/policy-paper-33.html
Fair enough! I mentioned the 80’s because that’s when I first became aware of undercurrents about ID cards. The Thatcher government blew hot and cold over the idea, but it just would not die. That’s why I concluded that within the establishment it was something they wanted, and they were willing to wait for a government to come along which would deliver for them.
I’ll expand my comment Guy;
if you attempt a point-by-point rebuttal of their mendacious rubbish, you will end up playing the ‘devilish detail’ game, which they already own.
That’s like going to Hell to argue your case for getting to Heaven.
What is needed is not the ability to quote them, but the ability to extract the literal essence of their proclamations, understand that, quote that and argue from the position of being opposed to that.
It’s a bit like the ‘Straw Man’ argument, except that you are (if necessary) able to demonstrate from their detail that the man isn’t made of straw.
John K,
Completely correct and well-spotted.
– Peter Lilley MP, speaking in the House on 29 November 2004
Pietr,
I agree. I do try. Which is why NO2ID frequently takes issue with pronouncements about the purposes of legislation or tackles them on policy grounds. We can and do attack methods. We don’t accept the existing state of affairs as the starting point.
What one can’t do as a pressure group is deal with a whole philosophy of government. Arguments have to be as concrete as possible to have a chance of being heard. And that breadth of remit is not available in any case.
What I’m describing used to be known as ‘drama’.
Ever tried publishing a novel that goes against the grain?
I tried in 1997-1999.
I finally succeeded in 2005.
On LULU.com, a self-publishing site.
Oh, and it is Canadian by the way.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I’m still waiting for a Frivolous Crimes Bill, to address the scourge re-selling ski-lift tickets, the horror of possessing less than one ounce of marijuana, and the utter shame of holding both a driver’s license and a state identification card.
Nigel Sedgewick was pointing at the incompatibilty of the modern long “enabling” statutes and all the “delegated legislation powers” (in this country called “statutory instuments”) with representive democracy – i.e. with the idea that the people elect representatives who read, debate and vote on the statutes. The size and scope of modern government makes democracy (direct or representative) impossible. One can have big government or one can have democracy – one can not have both (which means if “democracy leads to big government”, democracy leads to its own destruction).
John Locke argued that the powers of Parliament were delegated (from the people) so it could not delegate them to officials (they did not belong to Parliament – the powers were only entrusted to it).
A.V. Dicey warned that there were some signs modern state was moving away from the rule of law as it was traditionally understood.
Chief Justice Hewitt (in “The New Despotism” 1929) denouced the trend, especially the growing power of administrators and administrative, delegated, regulations).
The Supreme Court (all nine Justices I believe) ruled (in 1935) the National Industrial Recovery Act (of 1933)unconstitutional because it gave power to make law to the National Recovery Agency – and Congress could not just give away its powers to make rules with the force of law. However, F.D.R. called that a “horse and buggy” view of legislation, and the modern United States is almost as lawless (in the traditional sense – i.e. there are vast numbers of “laws” but no “rule of law” as traditionally understood) as the United Kingdom is.
Of course Congress still has the power to repeal any of the vague enabling Acts from which the various executive agencies get their power.
In the United Kingdom the vast majority of regulations (84% according the German government) are the result of E.U. demands – so Parliament has no say over them (even in theory).
“But Parliament could repeal the European Communities Act” – could it? Many university law departments are now teaching this is a “constitutional measure”.
And then there are the various international “conventions” and other such (the sort of thing the Senate is denounced for not ratifying).
People forget that these international conventions give administrators and unelected courts the power to make vast rules with the force of law. The Senate is quite right not to ratify them.
Or to agree to be part of any “regional or international” governments like the E.U.
Thanks Guy.
It’s not just ID cards of course. Only in the last few days there have been rumblings to ban smacking of children, and to reduce the drink drive limit from 80mg to 50mg. Both these issues have been chewed over ad nauseam, but they just won’t go away. There seems to be some sort of institutional desire for them, which cannot be assuaged.
Owners of guns are pretty used to this. The state had for a long time wanted to ban self-loading rifles, and to that end a Green Paper was introduced in 1973. It was defeated, but it never really went away, and the Hungerford massacre in 1987 allowed it to be dusted down and introduced. There was no public inquiry after Hungerford, or attempt to find out what went wrong, the establishment merely got its way as usual.
One campaigner reported that he had discussed this matter with a Home Office mandarin. He wanted to know why the Home Office never commissioned any research into these matters, but invariably pressed for stricter controls. The reply he got was “controls are good”, which when you think about it sums up the bureaucratic mindset pretty well. For them, controls are indeed good. They give them something to do, they give them power, influence, status, budgets, staff, offices, pensions, the whole panoply of bureaucratic happiness. If there were fewer controls, we would need fewer bureaucrats to administer them, and if you are a bureaucrat, that would be bad. QED.