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.

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.

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.