Wednesday, June 08, 2005
IT'S JUST THAT EVERYTHING YOU DO IS WRONG
The BBC reports:
So, with clarity such as the above being an organizational trait, the fact that it offered "scathing" investigatory comments like the following is hardly a shock: Yep, what do you think the U.K. is supposed to do to address this?:
That paragraph brought to mind our going through Heathrow Terminal 4 passport control as we returned from our Easter trip to America. My wife and I were stunned to overhear the following exchange take place at a nearby desk:
Of course, the Council wouldn't like if he is.
Now, I will not admit to having read all of the Council's report (heaven help me, but I just can't), but those sections I have read are full of the likes of that from page 25, section 74 above.
No good that. Now, of course a reference to them may appear someplace, but I haven't yet seen one. Clearly, if it is to have much more "bite", a re-write should include at least a dozen references to Britain's "gulags".
And this morning at 06:37 (according to the time on screen, but three minutes earlier than usual) on BBC TV's "Breakfast", we heard from this woman -- who is apparently on permanent retainer to the BBC. And she then also got a quote on the BBC web site below:
Be that as it may, as I noted the other day, the idea of government tagging millions of cars in the U.K. is apparently perfectly acceptable. Nor are cameras in trees, indeed cameras everywhere, outside the boundaries. No need for a "serious wake up call" about "fairness and basic human dignity" when it comes to such.
However, to its credit, "Liberty" tells us it opposes ID cards:
Incidentally, although claiming that just about everything the government proffers about fighting terror is wrong, don't think that "Liberty" is unaware or dismissive of the challenge a free society faces from head-slicing, airplane crashing into buildings, suicide bombing, jihadist self-expression. . .
Check that. Assuming asking jihadists -- only asking -- to read the Council's entire report and provide feedback will not be considered "torture", after they have staggered through about a dozen or so pages of it, surely just the prospect of 80 or so more before them (including the U.K. response) will cause them to throw up their hands and beg for mercy. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 08, 2005
The BBC reports:
Europe's human rights watchdog has criticised the way in which the UK treats terror suspects.Don't be shocked if the Council doesn't immediately ring any bells. Most Europeans have no idea what it is either. It is under no circumstance to be confused with the European Union. Indeed, it makes the latter look like it possesses a clear meaning and direction. For example, these are just the "main objectives" for the Council of Europe's Private Office of the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General:
The Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights, Alvaro Gil-Robles, says control orders violate basic rights - a claim ministers deny.
The measure effectively places a person under house arrest if the home secretary believes it is necessary. . .
To ensure implementation by the Secretariat of the Secretary General’s policy and management priorities ;Obviously, those with expertise in "promoting synergy and transversality" easily could make the Council their life's work.
to co-ordinate Secretariat services with a view to promoting synergy and transversality, and the settling of any differences ;
to prepare official visits of the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General, their meetings with visitors and their participation in internal and external events, and to ensure follow-up including feedback to the services involved in such events ;
to provide secretariat support to the Executive Board.
So, with clarity such as the above being an organizational trait, the fact that it offered "scathing" investigatory comments like the following is hardly a shock: Yep, what do you think the U.K. is supposed to do to address this?:
Entering the United Kingdom without a passportMy God, I'm losing the will. . .
74. The Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc.) Act 2004 introduces a new criminal offence of failing to provide, without a reasonable excuse, a valid document showing his or her identity and nationality when first interviewed by an immigration officer. This provision is somewhat problematic. It is evident that many individuals fleeing persecution will arrive without personal documents. At the same time, difficulties in accessing the United Kingdom legally have led many, genuine asylum seekers amongst them, to seek the assistance of traffickers, who frequently confiscate the documents of their ‘clients’. It is true, however, that a number of foreigners deliberately destroy their travel documents in the hope of rendering their deportation harder.
That paragraph brought to mind our going through Heathrow Terminal 4 passport control as we returned from our Easter trip to America. My wife and I were stunned to overhear the following exchange take place at a nearby desk:
PASSPORT OFFICER: Hello sir, where have you come from today?Gee, I wonder if he is still waiting for that supervisor to come down to speak to him?
STUPID IDIOT APPARENTLY JUST OFF A FLIGHT FROM NIGERIA: And what business is it of yours?!
Of course, the Council wouldn't like if he is.
Now, I will not admit to having read all of the Council's report (heaven help me, but I just can't), but those sections I have read are full of the likes of that from page 25, section 74 above.
No good that. Now, of course a reference to them may appear someplace, but I haven't yet seen one. Clearly, if it is to have much more "bite", a re-write should include at least a dozen references to Britain's "gulags".
And this morning at 06:37 (according to the time on screen, but three minutes earlier than usual) on BBC TV's "Breakfast", we heard from this woman -- who is apparently on permanent retainer to the BBC. And she then also got a quote on the BBC web site below:
. . . Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said the report was a "serious wake up call to politicians who have rubbished notions of fairness and basic human dignity".It is remarkably difficult to imagine it being a "wake up call" to anyone when it is much more likely to put any reader to sleep thanks to its pages upon pages of passive tense REAL rubbish.
"There should be a full parliamentary debate into all the key recommendations," she said. . .
Be that as it may, as I noted the other day, the idea of government tagging millions of cars in the U.K. is apparently perfectly acceptable. Nor are cameras in trees, indeed cameras everywhere, outside the boundaries. No need for a "serious wake up call" about "fairness and basic human dignity" when it comes to such.
However, to its credit, "Liberty" tells us it opposes ID cards:
“The horrendous economic costs of the ID card scheme are clear; the social costs will be with us for decades. Parliament must reject this rehashed ID card Bill; a scheme more about political machismo than rational policy."It is hard not to notice how that quoted criticism is primarily about cost, not liberty. But the group does at least eventually tell us that:
. . . We believe such a scheme will fail to tackle terrorism, identity fraud or any of the high-profile problems it is purportedly designed to address.However, before one gets too excited about their opposition, others also oppose it. . . others like the British National Party:
We have serious doubts about the security of a national central database and believe the risks to the rights of privacy and freedom from discrimination outweigh any benefits of centrally recording and sharing personal information. . .
. . . Compulsory ID cards will be issued and if you refuse to hand it over on demand you will be arrested and interned. The dream of Trotsky and Lenin of a Europe united under a single red flag with one star on it will have been enacted through the mechanism of a single blue flag with 25 stars upon it, and its foul birth will have been blessed by our so called democracies and the media. The end of liberty will be upon us.Somehow, I don't think "Liberty" envisions itself in alliance with the BNP.
Incidentally, although claiming that just about everything the government proffers about fighting terror is wrong, don't think that "Liberty" is unaware or dismissive of the challenge a free society faces from head-slicing, airplane crashing into buildings, suicide bombing, jihadist self-expression. . .
Anti Terrorism measures have done little to ensure Britain is safe and secure from terrorist attack, but much to infringe the civil liberties of those living in the UK. And the impact that they have on terrorism is questionable. . .. . . it is just that Britain should not be permitted to try to do anything substantive about it.
Check that. Assuming asking jihadists -- only asking -- to read the Council's entire report and provide feedback will not be considered "torture", after they have staggered through about a dozen or so pages of it, surely just the prospect of 80 or so more before them (including the U.K. response) will cause them to throw up their hands and beg for mercy. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 08, 2005
