The Secret Policeman’s balls-up

It was probably in my sixth post on this blog, way back in January- about Mark Stone, the undercover policeman “embedded” with a group of climate change protesters – that I wrote:

It would be interesting to discover whether the CPS were aware of the undercover officer. Don’t know if we’ll ever hear …

Well DAMN. There I was with Newsnight tuned in, and this is busting wide open. Looks like the Guardian will be breaking the story again. The suggestion appears to be that the Crown Prosecution Service – or some people within it – were entirely aware of Mr. Stone’s role.

And that some of the protesters were convicted, because the evidence that would have acquitted them wasn’t passed to their lawyers. You may recall that the prosecution pulled out of those trials scheduled for after the revelations.

By extension, one could suppose that there might have been a little bit of a cover-up (when the CPS investigated itself).

If the allegations can be substantiated, then we should see some lawyers going to jail for this.

Unless, of course, it turns out that this is just more bureaucratic nonsense imposed on us by the unelected judiciary / Europe ? (delete as preferred)

[Edit 9/6/2011] The Guardian reports that there’s to be an independent enquiry. I’m going to keep my eye on this one...

Protest progress

A couple of months ago, I pondered whether the UK would take on board the right to protest being applauded in North Africa.

I was mildly surprised – and actually very pleased – by the attitude of the Metropolitan Police over the TUC march. That my impression was endorsed by Liberty, who were invited to observe, shows that things seem to be moving in the right direction.

Maybe the Ian Tomlinson inquest is making the police look a bit harder in the mirror. It’s really important that they understand that they are the servants of the law – not the executive. And that they are their to protect our rights, not to intimidate us into compliance.

Human Rights (contd.)

Well, there’s nothing that gets everyone on board faster than the threat of rapists and paedophiles.

Now I don’t hold any brief for this particular demographic, but the issue seems simple.

• The judge has no discretion as to whether offenders are placed on the register.
• The register is there to protect the public. Crucially, it’s not intended as a punishment.
• There’s no appeal process for those serving long terms. So offenders who no longer pose a threat (and, yes, there may be one or two)will continue to clog up the register, and take police time in administering their whereabouts.
• The Supreme Court thinks that there probably should be a process. I tend to agree.

So the Home Secretary has got off her bum and will develop a process. The final word, she says, will lie with the police. So no politician or civil servant will risk their careers being tarnished by making a bad decision. What’s so difficult about that ?

But the rabid Europhobe right want to take away my Human Rights, substituting them with something that UK politicians can change whenever they find the rules a bit inconvenient.

So … this is serious now. Where’s my referendum ?

After all the praise (rightly) heaped on the Tunisians and Egyptians demanding Human Rights, and all of the words about the importance of Rule of Law, why can’t the UK government understand that they need to work within a constitution.

Human Rights

The recent furore over letting prisoners vote has brought out the rabid Tory Europhobes. And, of course, at least one loony “think tank” (who elects the think tanks anyway ?).

Now the Tories want a referendum before any more powers are given to Europe. Will I get a referendum when they want to take my Human Rights away from the European Court which has the job of safeguarding them ?

Just for the record (1) – British politicians don’t really understand the idea of “Rule of Law”. They think that if you rule, then you can just change the law …

Just for the record (2) – I don’t have strong feelings either way about prisoners’ votes. Give ’em all the vote in the safe seat where my home is, and it still wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference to the result …