DNA Pionner concerned about national database

The pioneer of genetic fingerprinting, Professor Sir Alec Jeffries, has said that the Government is risking public support for the national DNA database by holding innocent people’s records.

Professor Jeffries told the Guardian,

“I have significant concerns there [about the size of the database]. That database is currently populated by an unknown number of entirely innocent people. It is not possible to get an accurate number but it appears to be hundreds of thousands.

“My view is very clear that if you have been convicted of a crime then you owe it to society to be retained on that database for catching in the future should you reoffend. But the retention of entirely innocent people is a whole different issue. There is a sort of presumption here that if they haven’t committed any crime now, then they will in the future.”

Chris Huhne, Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary said,

“It demonstrates how out of touch the Government is with public opinion when the inventor of genetic fingerprinting has to tell them how unfair the DNA database is.

“It is unacceptable for the state to store the DNA of innocent people. The European Court agrees, Professor Jeffreys agrees and the public agrees. The Government must bring forward concrete proposals to remove the DNA of those that have done nothing wrong.

“Professor Jeffreys is also right to point out that the DNA database is not the flawless crime-fighting tool ministers would have us believe.”

Please help the campaign to protect innocent people’s DNA by signing this petition at: http://ourcampaign.org.uk/dna

Produced by Home Office Watch Friday, April 17th, 2009

MPs quiz Home Office on abuses

The campaign to protect photographers' rights has reached the House of Commons. Olivier Laurent talks to Conservative MP John Randall, who raised the issue in Parliament

The Home Office says that newly introduced counter-terrorism laws are not designed to prevent photographs being taken in public places, despite widespread concerns - and much evidence - that legislation is being misused to do just that.

The statement was made to Parliament during a wide-ranging debate on public photography rights after Conservative MP John Randall of Uxbridge submitted a question to the Home Secretary on Wednesday 01 April.

Randall took the initiative after becoming aware of the many recent incidents in which police have stopped photographers shooting in the public arena. He cited the example of a 70-year-old photographer who was handed a notice after taking a picture of a house in his neighbourhood in Windsor. The photo included a police car parked on a double yellow line with two police community support officers (PSCOs) inside.

Randall also added that police officers have been, in some cases, abusing the stop-and-search powers they received with Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. 'I am acutely aware of the potential for terrorism,' he said. 'We have to look out for such things, but common sense seems to have escaped police officers - or, very often, PCSOs - in some of the cases mentioned.'

Speaking to BJP, Randall said that he thinks the situation is 'absolutely crazy. It seems to be coming from some overzealous police officers'.

Answering Randall's comments, the parliamentary under-secretary of state for the home department, Shahid Malik, said that 'our counter-terrorism laws are not designed or intended to stop people taking photographs. That is simply not their aim. People have the right to take photographs in public places for legitimate reasons and we will uphold that right'.

He added: 'I accept that there are concerns about how some of our laws are being, or might be, applied. Concerns have been expressed about the stop-and-search powers used under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. As honorary members will know, section 44 enables the police to stop and search anyone within an authorised area for the purposes of searching for articles of a kind that could be used in connection with terrorism. The powers do not require a reasonable suspicion that such articles exist.'

Malik explained that these powers are useful, but they are 'also wide-ranging, and concerns have been expressed that the power is being used to stop people taking photographs - whether of buildings or of people - within authorised areas. There are also concerns that cameras are being confiscated as part of such searches. Those are genuine concerns that people have raised,' he said. 'I would like to make it clear that section 44 does not prohibit the taking of photographs.'

The parliamentary under-secretary of state for the home department added that it would be issuing guidance to 'ensure that the laws are implemented correctly and that people's liberties are not being infringed upon unnecessarily'.

The government also addressed the issue of the new offence in section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000, which was inserted by section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. The new set of rules, which BJP exposed earlier this year, targets anyone who 'elicits or attempts to elicit information about (members of armed forces), which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'. A person found guilty of this offence could be liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years, and to a fine.

However, Malik told MPs that while 'it has been suggested that the new offence could criminalise people taking or publishing photographs of police officers,' the law is in fact designed 'to capture terrorist activity directed at members of the protected groups, which, sadly, we know occurs. An offence might be committed, therefore, if someone provides a person with information about the names, addresses or details of car registration numbers of persons in the protected groups.

'The important thing is that the photographs would have to be of a kind likely to provide practical assistance to terrorists, and the person taking or providing the photograph would have to have no reasonable excuse, such as responsible journalism, for taking it.'

He added: 'I want to be clear about this: the offence does not capture an innocent tourist taking a photograph of a police officer, or a journalist photographing police officers as part of his or her job. It does not criminalise the normal taking of photographs of the police.'

However, speaking to BJP, Randall says that even if the government 'says that it's not what it meant with these laws, the fact is that's what is happening on the streets. I'm afraid that this could be used to intimidate people. In some cases, photographers have been forced to delete pictures.'

Randall also says he fears that legitimate press photographers could be bullied to delete picture of violent police actions during protests. '(Section 44) could be used as an excuse to try to hide such acts.'

BJP will continue to monitor the situation as part of its on-going campaign to protect photographers' rights.

Source Marina Scukina/BJP 8th April 2009

We were wrong, says the Met

The Metropolitan Police is apologising to press photographers covering last week's G20 protests after BJP questioned why they had been prevented from covering a key incident during clashes outside the Bank of England.

According to photographers contacted by BJP, police ordered them to move away from the action, citing Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, as they prepared a charge on demonstrators using police dogs.

The incident occurred while police were looking to move and arrest demonstrators last Thursday (02 April), and is thought to be the first time Section 14 has been used to corral journalists.

Section 14 gives police the power to impose conditions on assemblies 'to prevent serious public disorder, serious criminal damage or serious disruption to the life of the community'. Under the act, the police can impose the location and duration of a public assembly, as well as the number of people taking part in it.

It is not, however, designed to prevent photographers reporting on events.

'There was a whole group of journalists by Bank tube station at one point,' photographer (and chairman of the British Press Photographers' Association) Jeff Moore tells BJP. 'Officers were using police dogs on one side to snatch and arrest people on the other side. The police walked up to us and asked us to move away or we would be arrested under Section 14 of the Public Order Act. When we protested the decision, we were given the number of a press officer who only sympathised with us and said it was a police matter,' says Moore. 'Once the operation was over, they put us in a lovely spot, but it was too late and too far away.'

As we reported on our website (BJP-Online.com/news) last week, the move was officially protested the following day by the National Union of Journalists and the British Press Photographers' Association, who also condemned authorities for preventing journalists from leaving the Bank area after police formed a cordon around the demonstration for several hours.

After BJP put these complaints to the Met, a spokeswoman admitted Section 14 was wrongly applied. 'It was used to get people to leave an area,' she told BJP. 'It should not have been used specifically against photographers, and they should have been able to stay (in the immediate area) after showing their press cards. The Metropolitan Police apologises if that was not the case.'

The apology comes after both the NUJ and BPPA praised police communication with journalists on the day, but cited a number of incidents about which they remain concerned.

'We're unhappy that photographers were pinned in with the demonstrators during the Bank protests,' says NUJ freelance organiser John Toner. 'It appeared that if photographers wanted to leave the area, they first had to agree to be photographed. We find this unacceptable,' he says.

The Met spokeswoman told BJP that up to 6000 demonstrators, 200 were intent on causing trouble, so police officers were charged with obtaining the best evidence of the worst offences, leading them to take photos of anyone leaving the area, even press photographers'.

The NUJ hopes to discuss these matters with police during an official debrief in a few weeks time. 'Overall, the police were helpful,' says Toner, 'but there were these very serious and unacceptable problems and we intend to take these up.'

There were also unconfirmed reports of officers using the Terrorism Act 2000 to force protestors at the 'Climate Camp' demonstration in Bishopsgate to delete their images of police officers.

Source: BJP 8th April 2009

G20 and Protests in the City on a sunny April Fool's Day

The G20 parties have started; the mass media circus is here in the City, well-rehearsed smiling faces are on show by G20 leaders. Lets hope that the G20 Talks are fruitful, that protests are peaceful and that everyone walks away with a sense of participating in what is seen by many as the last real chance to halt the recession taking hold in all economies. In the 1930's countries were seen to take unilateral positions adopting "protectionist policies", this historically worsened the recession into the “Big Depression”.

This must not be allowed to happen again, all G20 member countries must agree to actively participate in a multi-lateral policy of financial control measures. Already, we have “fighting” talk from France and now Germany wishing to put a more unilateral line into Europe. This would create a destabilisation effect to the G20 accords.

There must be a cohesive and affective adaptation of monetary policies by all G20 members’ countries.

In terms of the other melt downs taking place not just in the banking system but on our own Planet, such as the polar ice melts taking place at increasing speed. Climate change is happening fast, we have at best less than 10 years to check global warming and CO2 emissions, this represents not only a potential disaster in store for all generations to come on a scale unknown before. The current World “Financial Credit" problems will pale into insignificance by any comparison.

Written by: Nigel Rumble 1st April 2009

U.K. MEP Daniel Hannan: Transcript of His Attack on Gordon Brown

I don't normally delve into the politics of the European Parliament, but this video of Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan stripping the bark off British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is worth noting. ("The devalued prime minister of a devalued government.") Many American politicians might be hearing the same criticisms next year if the U.S. economy is still depressed even as the national debt soars. Here is a transcript:

Prime Minister, I see you’ve already mastered the essential craft of the European politician, namely the ability to say one thing in this chamber and a very different thing to your home electorate. You’ve spoken here about free trade, and amen to that. Who would have guessed, listening to you just now, that you were the author of the phrase ‘British jobs for British workers’ and that you have subsidised, where you have not nationalised outright, swathes of our economy, including the car industry and many of the banks? Perhaps you would have more moral authority in this house if your actions matched your words? Perhaps you would have more legitimacy in the councils of the world if the United Kingdom were not going into this recession in the worst condition of any G20 country?

The truth, Prime Minister, is that you have run out of our money. The country as a whole is now in negative equity. Every British child is born owing around £20,000. Servicing the interest on that debt is going to cost more than educating the child. Now, once again today you try to spread the blame around; you spoke about an international recession, international crisis. Well, it is true that we are all sailing together into the squalls. But not every vessel in the convoy is in the same dilapidated condition. Other ships used the good years to caulk their hulls and clear their rigging; in other words – to pay off debt. But you used the good years to raise borrowing yet further. As a consequence, under your captaincy, our hull is pressed deep into the water line under the accumulated weight of your debt We are now running a deficit that touches 10% of GDP, an almost unbelievable figure. More than Pakistan, more than Hungary; countries where the IMF have already been called in. Now, it’s not that you’re not apologising; like everyone else I have long accepted that you’re pathologically incapable of accepting responsibility for these things. It’s that you’re carrying on, wilfully worsening our situation, wantonly spending what little we have left. Last year - in the last twelve months – a hundred thousand private sector jobs have been lost and yet you created thirty thousand public sector jobs.

Prime Minister, you cannot carry on for ever squeezing the productive bit of the economy in order to fund an unprecedented engorgement of the unproductive bit. You cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt. And when you repeat, in that wooden and perfunctory way, that our situation is better than others, that we’re ‘well-placed to weather the storm’, I have to tell you that you sound like a Brezhnev-era apparatchik giving the party line. You know, and we know, and you know that we know that it’s nonsense! Everyone knows that Britain is worse off than any other country as we go into these hard times. The IMF has said so; the European Commission has said so; the markets have said so – which is why our currency has devalued by thirty percent. And soon the voters too will get their chance to say so. They can see what the markets have already seen: that you are the devalued Prime Minister of a devalued government.

By James Pethokoukis 25 March 2009

‘We’re anglers not terrorists’

Three anglers claim they were arrested under anti-terror laws in Woodley after using laser pens to frighten ducks away from their bait hooks.

The three men were taken into Loddon Valley Police Station late on Friday, March 7, and two were held overnight, DNA tested, fingerprinted and then released without charge.

The third man was released almost immediately following the 10.30pm incident.

Former Lib Dem councillor Tom McCann said: “When I was in the Thatchers at the weekend and they came in and told me what had happened to them, I couldn’t believe it.

“These were all local men who knew some of the police officers involved. They were fishing on a Friday night. It doesn’t seem possible to me that the police really thought they were terrorists.”

Reading East prospective Parliamentary candidate for the Lib Dems Cllr Gareth Epps said: “Liberal Democrats repeatedly warned that the thousands of new criminal offences created under this Labour Government were dangerous and mostly useless.

“Now we have the surreal spectacle of local fishermen being thrown into the cells using anti-terrorism legislation. Local people are owed an explanation and those arrested an apology, as I understand some of them want to take this further, understandably.”

Police spokesman Adam Fisher said: “Three men were arrested in Woodley on March 7 on suspicion of endangering an aircraft and were later released without charge.

"Over the past year there have been several incidents in the Thames Valley area where civil aviation pilots have reported being dazzled by ground-based lasers shining into their cockpit.

“Obviously this is an issue that we have to take very seriously as it is a matter of public safety.”

A police spokesman clarified later that the men were arrested under the Air Navigation Order 2005 - not terror laws.

For full story

Click here for link to Liberty

By Linda Fort March 24, 2009

Parliament berates police over treatment of press

The Parliament's Joint Select Committee on Human Rights has officially criticised the police for the 'unacceptable' way photojournalists are treated while covering protests.

Over the past few weeks, the Committee has been looking at how police handled the media covering recent protests and demonstrations.

The report, released this week, says that it 'is unacceptable that individual journalists are left with no option but to take court action against officers who unlawfully interfere with their work. Journalists have the right to carry out their lawful business and report the way in which demonstrations are handled by the police without state interference, unless such interference is necessary and proportionate, and journalists need to be confident that they can carry out their role'.

It continues: 'The public in turn have the right to impart and receive information: the media are the eyes and ears of the public, helping to ensure that the police are accountable to the people they serve.

'Effective training of front line police officers on the role of journalists in protests is vital. Police forces should consider how to ensure their officers follow the media guidelines which have been agreed between ACPO and the NUJ, and take steps to deal with officers who do not follow them.'

Source BJP 25th March2009