Monday, August 06, 2007
HEATHROW PROTESTER BAN
Airport operator BAA has won a High Court ruling banning certain climate change protesters at Heathrow airport.
The High Court has granted the injunction, which BAA hopes will stop disruption between 14 and 21 August.
Thousands of people are expected to join the camp and are promising "high impact direct action".
Three groups are included in the injunction which BAA says will ensure a peaceful protest, but critics argue is an infringement of civil liberties.
The High Court will rule on how wide-ranging the injunction should be. Protesters say they will camp out regardless.
The airport is applying for an injunction under the 1997 Protection from Harassment Act.
BAA's solicitor Tim Lawson-Cruttenden has told the High Court the firm wanted to ensure a peaceful protest.
Nicholas Blake QC, opposing the injunction, said harassment legislation was never designed as a way of policing demonstrations.
London Mayor Ken Livingstone has condemned BAA's move as an infringement of civil liberties.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
TEN YEARS ON
On Thursday 10th July 1997 120,000 people gathered in Hyde Park for the cause of hunting and the countryside and the Countryside Alliance was born. A Labour Government had just come to power with a commitment to a "free vote on hunting with hounds" and Michael Foster MP's Bill to ban hunting had been introduced to Parliament. This great rally was the first time many of us realised the strength and solidarity of the rural community.
It is easy to forget those days: the fever pitch of the occasion, and most importantly the impact that it made. Our story, and the people who told it, were projected onto the national news agenda in spectacular form, and have never really been off it since.
The subsequent ten years have been littered with important milestones, not all of them positive. Our Government has done little to recognise the true value of rural Britain and, via a mixture of neglect, ignorance and in the case of hunting downright mischief caused widespread unease.
Yesterday's publication of Alastair Campbell's diaries of the Blair years' provided yet more evidence of how badly the Government behaved over the Hunting Act. Campbell records that Peter Mandelson "launched into a big defence of foxhunting", and that, "yet again he (Tony Blair) said he wished we could get out of hunting".
However, as we know principle soon gave way to political practicality and Tony Blair came under pressure from his chief whip Hilary Armstrong who told him that "if he didn't bring back the Hunting Bill for a third reading soon we would not have a hope in hell of winning the foundation hospital vote". Meanwhile Gerald Kaufman MP, behaving with his normal sense of proportion, was telling Campbell that he "would never see himself as a loyal Tony Blair supporter again" if he backtracked on hunting saying: "If the Tony who stood up to Milosevic and bin Laden can't stand up to the Countryside Alliance, I can't support him".
The diaries do not cover the period in 2004 when the decision was made to allow the use of the Parliament Acts to force through the Hunting Bill, but we already know what happened. For all his supposed doubts Tony Blair was not strong enough to stand up to the obsessive MPs who saw hunting as some sort of political football.
It is surely worse to have known that something was wrong and allowed it to happen, than to have made something happen because you were wrong.
But much has been achieved in the last decade which is positive. The rural community is on the political map, and whilst we are some way off commanding the status that minorities should expect, we are now a recognised force with real influence. It is because of this Conservatives are committed to a free vote on the repeal of the Hunting Act.
That commitment will only come about if we remain as determined in the next five years as we have been in the last ten and continue to target clear objectives with sound arguments.
Most of all the Alliance needs the continued support of all of you: the hundreds of thousands of decent people who have marched and campaigned for liberty, livelihood and the rural way of life.
Thank you for what you have done, for what you are still doing now and for what you will do in the future.
Simon Hart
Sunday, July 08, 2007
TAKING LIBERTIES
The more I hear about this film, the more I can't wait to see it.
Right to Protest, Right to Freedom of Speech. Right to Privacy. Right not to be detained without charge, Innocent Until Proven Guilty. Prohibition from Torture. TAKING LIBERTIES will reveal how these six central pillars of liberty have been systematically destroyed by New Labour, and the freedoms of the British people stolen from under their noses amidst a climate of fear created by the media and government itself.
Visit their website for more information and to see where it is showing. I've just booked my ticket at the local Arts Centre!
If you can't get to see the film, then they have also published a book covering the content.
Right to Protest, Right to Freedom of Speech. Right to Privacy. Right not to be detained without charge, Innocent Until Proven Guilty. Prohibition from Torture. TAKING LIBERTIES will reveal how these six central pillars of liberty have been systematically destroyed by New Labour, and the freedoms of the British people stolen from under their noses amidst a climate of fear created by the media and government itself.
Visit their website for more information and to see where it is showing. I've just booked my ticket at the local Arts Centre!
If you can't get to see the film, then they have also published a book covering the content.
Friday, July 06, 2007
SMOKING BAN IS 'ONE WE NEED'
In the latest instalment of our new fortnightly column from John Howarth, Reading Borough Council’s former head of transport and strategic planning, he tackles the subject of the newly-implemented smoking ban and concludes wholeheartedly that it is a good idea.
A few weeks back I returned home late at night. As I opened the taxi door a fox strutted across the drive without a care in the world. In my merry frame of mind I made a mental note to call out the Northcourt Avenue Hunt next morning.
By the time I got to the swimming pool first thing I had remembered that Parliament had banned hunting with dogs. I would have to live and let live after all.
Advertisementyour story continues below
I doubt if the hounds and their undesirable masters would have made it to the university area, and fox hunting always seemed a pretty lame method of vermin control anyway, but as a politician I was never able to raise any enthusiasm for banning hunting. However; many of my colleagues were unreasonably passionate about doing so.
At every level of politics endless requests to support the banning of this that or the other go with the territory. If you can’t actually vote to ‘ban it’ yourself, then you are asked to sign the petition, write the letter, move the resolution, join the campaign or whatever else.
I can recall being asked to help ban, among other things: hunting, hand guns, fishing, fireworks, landmines, chewing gum, raves, bull bars and Brown Sugar by the Rolling Stones (really, I’m not making that up!).
It is all too tempting for politicians to call for whatever to be ‘banned’. It gets an easy headline for starters and makes it look as if you are ‘doing something’. You are sure to find enough zealots, puritans or party-poopers that will support your cause.
That’s fine if you go in for knee-jerk reactions to the latest moral panic or enjoy playing to the gallery, but I think that people should be free to do as they wish so long as it doesn’t damage others – so live and let live.
Even in many cases when harm to others clearly exists, ‘banning it’ proves impractical and makes for poor law. Sincere politicians who understand this don’t really mean ‘ban’, they mean ‘make life more difficult for the scumbags’.
Despite all that, the one ban I support with enthusiasm is the prohibition of smoking in enclosed public places. It is a ban we need.
The health evidence is overwhelming. The rights of those who work for their living in pubs, clubs and restaurants deserve respect. As experience in Ireland, Scotland and Wales shows, it is practical and enforceable. In the Reading bars early signs were encouraging; few seemed to mind, good times were still being had.
It is a ban that came about the right way. It was not the decision of Government, but of Parliament on a free vote across party lines.
The Reading MPs, Martin Salter and Rob Wilson both voted for the ban. The evidence suggests that the public approves.
It is a ban that should be respected. In our democracy, whatever our right to protest, we should respect the will of Parliament as it reflects consensus in society. It is a ban that points the right direction. ‘Do what you like in your own home, but behave considerately in public’ sounds like a good principle to me.
We all have something we would ban – I’d outlaw the dreary tunes of Coldplay – but I’ll settle for not having them in my house.
First printed in: Reading Evening Post
A few weeks back I returned home late at night. As I opened the taxi door a fox strutted across the drive without a care in the world. In my merry frame of mind I made a mental note to call out the Northcourt Avenue Hunt next morning.
By the time I got to the swimming pool first thing I had remembered that Parliament had banned hunting with dogs. I would have to live and let live after all.
Advertisementyour story continues below
I doubt if the hounds and their undesirable masters would have made it to the university area, and fox hunting always seemed a pretty lame method of vermin control anyway, but as a politician I was never able to raise any enthusiasm for banning hunting. However; many of my colleagues were unreasonably passionate about doing so.
At every level of politics endless requests to support the banning of this that or the other go with the territory. If you can’t actually vote to ‘ban it’ yourself, then you are asked to sign the petition, write the letter, move the resolution, join the campaign or whatever else.
I can recall being asked to help ban, among other things: hunting, hand guns, fishing, fireworks, landmines, chewing gum, raves, bull bars and Brown Sugar by the Rolling Stones (really, I’m not making that up!).
It is all too tempting for politicians to call for whatever to be ‘banned’. It gets an easy headline for starters and makes it look as if you are ‘doing something’. You are sure to find enough zealots, puritans or party-poopers that will support your cause.
That’s fine if you go in for knee-jerk reactions to the latest moral panic or enjoy playing to the gallery, but I think that people should be free to do as they wish so long as it doesn’t damage others – so live and let live.
Even in many cases when harm to others clearly exists, ‘banning it’ proves impractical and makes for poor law. Sincere politicians who understand this don’t really mean ‘ban’, they mean ‘make life more difficult for the scumbags’.
Despite all that, the one ban I support with enthusiasm is the prohibition of smoking in enclosed public places. It is a ban we need.
The health evidence is overwhelming. The rights of those who work for their living in pubs, clubs and restaurants deserve respect. As experience in Ireland, Scotland and Wales shows, it is practical and enforceable. In the Reading bars early signs were encouraging; few seemed to mind, good times were still being had.
It is a ban that came about the right way. It was not the decision of Government, but of Parliament on a free vote across party lines.
The Reading MPs, Martin Salter and Rob Wilson both voted for the ban. The evidence suggests that the public approves.
It is a ban that should be respected. In our democracy, whatever our right to protest, we should respect the will of Parliament as it reflects consensus in society. It is a ban that points the right direction. ‘Do what you like in your own home, but behave considerately in public’ sounds like a good principle to me.
We all have something we would ban – I’d outlaw the dreary tunes of Coldplay – but I’ll settle for not having them in my house.
First printed in: Reading Evening Post
Sunday, October 01, 2006
FREEDOM - A PRICELESS COMMODITY
Before he took to the stage, a series of film clips showed some of the things that had changed in the years since he became Prime Minister. "We banned fox hunting... We banned smoking in public places... We banned beards." Well, the last was not on the commentary, but banning things has become a bit of a habit for this administration. There is a disturbing authoritarian streak in New Labour, which has encouraged a curbing of civil liberties that would have resulted in riots had a Conservative Government attempted such measures.
Early signs came in 1999 when China's President Jiang Zemin visited London. Demonstrators who wanted to make the visiting delegation aware of their opposition to the Chinese repression in Tibet found themselves bundled away to where they could not offend President Jiang. The traditional right to peaceful protest was overriden by the importance of fostering good relations with the increasing global economic force that China was becoming.
Since then, even those who restrict their protest to the mere display of a slogan across their chests have found that they can be arrested and fined. "Bollocks to Blair" T-shirts were not in evidence in Manchester last week, but demand may have been curtailed since several wearers have now found them to be very risky items of attire.
Freedom is a priceless commodity, and gradually the Blair Government has eroded it. No doubt the Prime Minister believes that with every new restriction he is acting in the best interests of the country but, however well-meaning, his tactics take us closer to a police state rather than the polite society he would like to build.
If David Cameron is seeking a broad heading for what a Conservative government could offer Britain, he might consider the idea of freedom. The electorate would almost certainly warm to the promise of less government rather than more restrictions and regulations.
There is, however, one area in which New Labour has been surprisingly non-interventionist. During its nine years in power it has watched while individuals have run up debt on an heroic scale. Despite lecturing us on the amount of fruit and vegetables we should consume, it has ignored one of the most pernicious diseases to attack families.
Debt wrecks lives. Not so long ago, the ordinary British family was wary of borrowing and regarded thrift as admirable. That changed, spurred on by the consumerism that was rampant in the 1980s. Then all restraint vanished so that now Britain accounts for a staggering third of all unsecured debt in western Europe.
The banks have made it easy to collect a wallet full of plastic cards and to swipe them with extravagant abandon. But there is, ultimately, a price to be paid. Personal bankruptcies have reached record levels and although the new bankruptcy laws are being used by some as a relatively painless way of sloughing off debts, for many others, the consequences are tragic. Homes are lost, families broken and careers ruined as a result of bankruptcy. Yet the banks have continued to rain down offers of credit, even to those who do not have the income with which to service it.
There are now signs that the public may be waking up to the dangers of this "easy money": credit-card borrowing is falling, with people choosing to pay down their debt rather than add to it. The continuing rise in house prices, however, will ensure that first-time buyers in particular will be taking on massive borrowings in order to start owning their own home.
As Mr Blair extolled the achievements of his Government, including its economic record, there was no mention of the precarious financial state of many families. Neither did such a down-beat note sully the leadership bid from Chancellor Gordon Brown. But then, he is in no position to criticise those who run up dangerous debts.
The day after delegates left Manchester, the Office for National Statistics produced some figures that might have made even that relentless Pollyanna, Hazel Blears, stop trilling "Everything is wonderful". At the end of the last financial year the Government's own borrowing had reached £529.1 billion, an increase of £47.6 billion on the year. The country's gross debt now accounts for 42.1 per cent of GDP, up from 39.9 per cent a year earlier. Part of the reason for the increase is the Private Finance Initiative, the Government's scheme for acquiring schools and hospitals now and paying for them later. Blair's Government has been using its credit cards as much as any shopaholic, and the bills are beginning to land.
That will curtail the freedom of the next Government to offer the generous tax cuts for which some strident voices call. Mr Cameron might quell them by putting freedom high on his agenda.
Early signs came in 1999 when China's President Jiang Zemin visited London. Demonstrators who wanted to make the visiting delegation aware of their opposition to the Chinese repression in Tibet found themselves bundled away to where they could not offend President Jiang. The traditional right to peaceful protest was overriden by the importance of fostering good relations with the increasing global economic force that China was becoming.
Since then, even those who restrict their protest to the mere display of a slogan across their chests have found that they can be arrested and fined. "Bollocks to Blair" T-shirts were not in evidence in Manchester last week, but demand may have been curtailed since several wearers have now found them to be very risky items of attire.
Freedom is a priceless commodity, and gradually the Blair Government has eroded it. No doubt the Prime Minister believes that with every new restriction he is acting in the best interests of the country but, however well-meaning, his tactics take us closer to a police state rather than the polite society he would like to build.
If David Cameron is seeking a broad heading for what a Conservative government could offer Britain, he might consider the idea of freedom. The electorate would almost certainly warm to the promise of less government rather than more restrictions and regulations.
There is, however, one area in which New Labour has been surprisingly non-interventionist. During its nine years in power it has watched while individuals have run up debt on an heroic scale. Despite lecturing us on the amount of fruit and vegetables we should consume, it has ignored one of the most pernicious diseases to attack families.
Debt wrecks lives. Not so long ago, the ordinary British family was wary of borrowing and regarded thrift as admirable. That changed, spurred on by the consumerism that was rampant in the 1980s. Then all restraint vanished so that now Britain accounts for a staggering third of all unsecured debt in western Europe.
The banks have made it easy to collect a wallet full of plastic cards and to swipe them with extravagant abandon. But there is, ultimately, a price to be paid. Personal bankruptcies have reached record levels and although the new bankruptcy laws are being used by some as a relatively painless way of sloughing off debts, for many others, the consequences are tragic. Homes are lost, families broken and careers ruined as a result of bankruptcy. Yet the banks have continued to rain down offers of credit, even to those who do not have the income with which to service it.
There are now signs that the public may be waking up to the dangers of this "easy money": credit-card borrowing is falling, with people choosing to pay down their debt rather than add to it. The continuing rise in house prices, however, will ensure that first-time buyers in particular will be taking on massive borrowings in order to start owning their own home.
As Mr Blair extolled the achievements of his Government, including its economic record, there was no mention of the precarious financial state of many families. Neither did such a down-beat note sully the leadership bid from Chancellor Gordon Brown. But then, he is in no position to criticise those who run up dangerous debts.
The day after delegates left Manchester, the Office for National Statistics produced some figures that might have made even that relentless Pollyanna, Hazel Blears, stop trilling "Everything is wonderful". At the end of the last financial year the Government's own borrowing had reached £529.1 billion, an increase of £47.6 billion on the year. The country's gross debt now accounts for 42.1 per cent of GDP, up from 39.9 per cent a year earlier. Part of the reason for the increase is the Private Finance Initiative, the Government's scheme for acquiring schools and hospitals now and paying for them later. Blair's Government has been using its credit cards as much as any shopaholic, and the bills are beginning to land.
That will curtail the freedom of the next Government to offer the generous tax cuts for which some strident voices call. Mr Cameron might quell them by putting freedom high on his agenda.
Friday, September 01, 2006
CHILD DATABASE
Ridiculous new scheme to infringe the rights of children now; what is more terrifying is the damage this linked database could do in the wrong hands.
Plans for a government database holding personal details on ten million children could be illegal and will hand a ‘dangerous weapon’ to paedophiles, according to a report.
Ministers are spending £200million of taxpayers’ money to create a file on every child in England and Wales, detailing personal information on their health and education.
More than 400,000 civil servants and council workers will have access to the Children’s Index, which by the end of 2008 will link up with 2,000 databases currently run separately by doctors, schools and social services.
But the report by the Information Commissioner’s Office, an independent watchdog that reports to Parliament, warns that Labour’s plans will contravene data protection laws because parents will not be given a say over whether information on their children can be passed on.
The report, obtained by Channel 4’s 30 Minutes programme, says the index is unlawful because in some cases the Government has abused its powers by failing to gain proper consent from parents.
The report adds that the database could actually put more children in peril because any paedophile gaining access to the system would be able to find and contact the most vulnerable children in any community.
Assistant Information Commissioner Jonathan Bamford said: ‘I think people might be surprised by the extent of the information, and the reasons for keeping it. I think we’re getting to a stage where virtually every household that has a child in the UK, will have information held there.’
Ministers say that the index will contain only basic information, including name, address and date of birth, plus details of a child’s school, GP and whether they have a carer or social worker.
But those with access to the system would be able to use it as a means of seeking more detailed information on a child, including their health records or exam results.
The index was given the go-ahead in response to the murder of eight-year-old Victoria Climbie, who died because social services failed to talk to other agencies who could have spotted the torture and abuse she was suffering.
Cambridge professor Ross Anderson, one of the report’s authors, warned that the security of the system is suspect.
‘There are many people with evil intent who will try to use databases once they’re built,’ he said. ‘Paedophiles can use the database to find out which children in their neighbourhood are vulnerable and how. And where they live, if they’ve got access to the system. And I’m sure they’ll get it.’
A spokesman for the Department for Education, which is overseeing the plans, said: ‘There will be extremely strict controls around access to information.
No one other than practitioners, such as police, GPs, and social workers with criminal record bureau checks would be able to access any information. The database is all about protecting vulnerable young people from abuse.’
Plans for a government database holding personal details on ten million children could be illegal and will hand a ‘dangerous weapon’ to paedophiles, according to a report.
Ministers are spending £200million of taxpayers’ money to create a file on every child in England and Wales, detailing personal information on their health and education.
More than 400,000 civil servants and council workers will have access to the Children’s Index, which by the end of 2008 will link up with 2,000 databases currently run separately by doctors, schools and social services.
But the report by the Information Commissioner’s Office, an independent watchdog that reports to Parliament, warns that Labour’s plans will contravene data protection laws because parents will not be given a say over whether information on their children can be passed on.
The report, obtained by Channel 4’s 30 Minutes programme, says the index is unlawful because in some cases the Government has abused its powers by failing to gain proper consent from parents.
The report adds that the database could actually put more children in peril because any paedophile gaining access to the system would be able to find and contact the most vulnerable children in any community.
Assistant Information Commissioner Jonathan Bamford said: ‘I think people might be surprised by the extent of the information, and the reasons for keeping it. I think we’re getting to a stage where virtually every household that has a child in the UK, will have information held there.’
Ministers say that the index will contain only basic information, including name, address and date of birth, plus details of a child’s school, GP and whether they have a carer or social worker.
But those with access to the system would be able to use it as a means of seeking more detailed information on a child, including their health records or exam results.
The index was given the go-ahead in response to the murder of eight-year-old Victoria Climbie, who died because social services failed to talk to other agencies who could have spotted the torture and abuse she was suffering.
Cambridge professor Ross Anderson, one of the report’s authors, warned that the security of the system is suspect.
‘There are many people with evil intent who will try to use databases once they’re built,’ he said. ‘Paedophiles can use the database to find out which children in their neighbourhood are vulnerable and how. And where they live, if they’ve got access to the system. And I’m sure they’ll get it.’
A spokesman for the Department for Education, which is overseeing the plans, said: ‘There will be extremely strict controls around access to information.
No one other than practitioners, such as police, GPs, and social workers with criminal record bureau checks would be able to access any information. The database is all about protecting vulnerable young people from abuse.’
Thursday, August 17, 2006
ADDICTED TO LEGISLATION
By Simon Hart, Countryside Alliance
A pop quiz for you from this week’s news – who said the following:
"What this Government has done to the Criminal Justice Process over the last 5 or 6 years in intolerable. Lots of criminal statutes, lots of criminal laws passed. So much that judges and magistrates are bulging at the seams trying to understand, trying to take on board the myriad of proposals that the Government has placed out. The problem is that courts are stretched to their limits because of knee-jerk laws that have been passed over the last 5 or 6 years. Courts are at their limits, police are at their limits....". Any ideas?
Would you be surprised that this comment was made by John Cooper, Chairman of the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS)? He was commenting on the news that over 3,000 new offences have been created under Labour since 1997, (including, incidentally, over 500 from DEFRA). I am minded to agree with him – the situation is intolerable. But his organisation is not exactly helping to ease the burden.
Less surprising is the fact that Mr Cooper’s point of view is in direct contrast to the views of his LACS colleagues, who seem to want to stretch the courts even closer to their limits under the Hunting Act. Calling on the Police to prioritise hunting because they, the League, cannot afford any more private prosecutions, Mike Hobday was this week quoted as saying about the recent Tony Wright trial, "The League only took forward this one private prosecution because we thought that the police had so badly failed in their responsibilities."
Luckily Richard Stowe, Assistant Chief Constable of Devon and Somerset Police, has taken the sensible view that “the priority for us is to protect the people of Devon and Cornwall from violent crime, burglaries and vehicle crime.”
As we approach the new season hunts will of course work with their local Constabularies to maintain the good relations we have built up over many years. We will continue to hunt within the law as we understand it and we will continue to work on the basis that the Hunting Act is flawed, illiberal and must be repealed. We will not be telling the Police how to do their jobs – it is clear that they have enough on their plates.
Simon Hart
A pop quiz for you from this week’s news – who said the following:
"What this Government has done to the Criminal Justice Process over the last 5 or 6 years in intolerable. Lots of criminal statutes, lots of criminal laws passed. So much that judges and magistrates are bulging at the seams trying to understand, trying to take on board the myriad of proposals that the Government has placed out. The problem is that courts are stretched to their limits because of knee-jerk laws that have been passed over the last 5 or 6 years. Courts are at their limits, police are at their limits....". Any ideas?
Would you be surprised that this comment was made by John Cooper, Chairman of the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS)? He was commenting on the news that over 3,000 new offences have been created under Labour since 1997, (including, incidentally, over 500 from DEFRA). I am minded to agree with him – the situation is intolerable. But his organisation is not exactly helping to ease the burden.
Less surprising is the fact that Mr Cooper’s point of view is in direct contrast to the views of his LACS colleagues, who seem to want to stretch the courts even closer to their limits under the Hunting Act. Calling on the Police to prioritise hunting because they, the League, cannot afford any more private prosecutions, Mike Hobday was this week quoted as saying about the recent Tony Wright trial, "The League only took forward this one private prosecution because we thought that the police had so badly failed in their responsibilities."
Luckily Richard Stowe, Assistant Chief Constable of Devon and Somerset Police, has taken the sensible view that “the priority for us is to protect the people of Devon and Cornwall from violent crime, burglaries and vehicle crime.”
As we approach the new season hunts will of course work with their local Constabularies to maintain the good relations we have built up over many years. We will continue to hunt within the law as we understand it and we will continue to work on the basis that the Hunting Act is flawed, illiberal and must be repealed. We will not be telling the Police how to do their jobs – it is clear that they have enough on their plates.
Simon Hart
