Author: David Landon Cole

Sir Keith Park

Posted on by David Landon Cole

ACM Sir Keith Park, GCB, KBE, MC & Bar, DFC, RAF, photo courtesy of WikipediaAir Vice Marshal Sir Keith Park, later Air Chief Marshal, commanded No. 11 Group RAF from April to December 1940. No. 11 Group had responsibility for air defence of the south-east of England, including London, and so Park was in charge of the group that bore the brunt of Hitler’s attacks in the Battle of Britain.

There has been a movement to commemorate Park on the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square. Boris Johnson initially indicated that he supported the idea, but in the end has decided to continue the Fourth Plinth project of changing artworks. As I have said before, I rather like the Fourth Plinth and I am glad that the project, for the time being at least, will continue. I expressed my support for Yinka Shonibare’s Nelson’s Ship in a Bottle for the next installation.

However, the fact that the Fourth Plinth is not available does not mean that that there cannot be a statue of Sir Keith Park in the centre of London. While I understand the logic of putting a senior RAF person on a square that has army and navy figures already, there is a risk that Sir Keith would become as famous as some of the other statues on Trafalgar Square. Can you tell me what Henry Havelock, Charles James Napier or Andrew Cunningham did? Equally, despite the campaign’s statement to the contrary, the plinth is not empty. From an artistic point of view, the Fourth Plinth is shaped and sized for an equestrian statue – in the north-east corner, George IV is on horseback.

It would be unfortunate if the campaign to commemorate Park were to end. It would be equally unfortunate if it were to focus on overturning a given decision, potentially annoying people who support the Fourth Plinth project, when there are other places that could be considered. Leicester Square is undergoing redevelopment; there are spaces on both sides of the Ministry of Defence Main Building. Situated between the Embankment and Whitehall, lots of people walk past on the way between Parliament Square and Trafalgar Square.

A final thought; I do hope that this campaign, worthy though it is, is not the first of a series to replace the Fourth Plinth with something permanent.

xD.

The BNP, Hizb ut-Tahrir and no-platform

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Sunny Hundal asks a couple of interesting questions over at Pickled Politics; should a no-platform policy with regards to the BNP be continued and should that it be extended to groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir?

By way of a background, I understand a no-platform policy (in the instance of the BNP) to mean that no-one from an organisation with that policy would share a speaking platform of any description with a representative of the BNP and that the BNP should not be invited to speak at said organisation. I don’t consider this to impinge on freedom of speech. Firstly, there is no obligation, for the most part, on anyone holding an event to invite people of all political persuasions. Secondly, there are no restrictions placed as a result of the policy on the BNP’s ability to inform others and on others to inform themselves about the BNP as there is plenty of information out there, not least on their website; nor does it prevent their arguments being dealt with as it is not necessary for someone to be present to be able to take on board their argument.

The point of the no-platform policy is to prevent a serially mendacious party from being able to claim any form of recognition or acceptance from civil society because they will twist ‘appearing on platform x’ into an endorsement of their existence and precisely because they crave that acceptance. The evidence for that is the dropping of the boot-boy image for suits and the attempt to cover up their racist and violent tendencies for the image of a legitimate political party.

Sunny asserts that the ‘BNP has been successfully de-legitimised’. I’m afraid that this is not universally true; in parts of East London, they are very much legitimate to some parts of the community. It is true that there was not much of an increase in the vote for the BNP but it put them above the five per cent threshold to give them an Assembly seat; we cannot deny and must not ignore the benefits that the BNP will seeks to extract from this position. There are many things that can be done and, in fairness, are being done. However, abandoning a policy of delegitimisation just as the BNP achieve an electoral success would simply allow them to say that their ‘growth’ means that the mainstream parties now see them as a legitimate part of the political sphere.

A good reminder of the illegitimacy of the BNP comes from the Tory Troll, who reports that an internal challenge to the leadership of Nick Griffin has been met by that organisation’s elections officer, one Eddy Butler, telling members not to sign any nomination papers and for ‘zero publicity’ to be given to the challenger.

Hizb ut-Tahrir are a different kettle of fish altogether. Yes, they are unpleasant and, yes, they have traits in common with the BNP but it would be wrong to see Hizb ut-Tahrir as simply an Islamic version of the BNP. For one thing, they are in different situations and they have different political ends; that alone is grounds to consider different tactics for opposing these groups differently.

The BNP, as I see it, wish to appeal to all whites. Their tactics are dependent upon a broad appeal and, because of the level of their support, they cannot nurture individuals. Their aim is to represent what they would consider the ‘true’ inhabitants of the UK; a broad take-up of the no-platform policy makes it harder for them to claim that representation as the mainstream not only disagree with them but see them as beyond the pale. That might sound a little counter-intuitive, but they are not just going after the alienated but after people who feel they are abandoned by the major parties; the difference there is important.

Hizb ut-Tahrir are not targeting all Muslims; rather, they are going after Muslims they might consider susceptible to their influence. They seek to capitalise on alienation and would be able to capitalise on the exalted position of difference if no-platform were broadly implemented towards them; for those who might feel removed from the British polis (to the extent that it exists), this would highlight Hizb ut-Tahrir as a standard around which to rally.

I would echo a point made by Sunny:

“The other problem is that most of the people who choose to take on HuT don’t know much about them, which provides them an opportunity to play the victim card and pretend they’re just lovely people.”

“[T]he truth will set you free” (John 8:321) or knowledge is power2; whichever way you prefer it, providing honest information and background to both these groups is a decent part of defeating them. The question of no-platform is essentially a question of the best way of delivering the message and countering the threats they pose in a manner which at least does nothing to strengthen their position and at best weakens it. Given that, as I have said, I have no philosophical objection to no-platform, it becomes a tactical issue. Going back to the original questions, I would say that we should continue the no-platform policy against the BNP but that we should not extend it to Hizb ut-Tahrir at this juncture.

xD.

1 – Disclaimer – the truth will set you free, but you might not like it.

2 – And, given that I’m quoting a lot and that both the BNP and Hizb ut-Tahrir have their own variations on truth, ‘sunlight is the best disinfectant’.

The persistence of American power – in response to Matt Sinclair

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Matt Sinclair has an interesting post up, in response to Will Hutton’s article, on the role of universities in promoting America’s hegemonic position. In short, Matt says that non-Western countries lack (in short) the cultural situation that allows Socratic method to flourish and that good academia attracts good academics.

To an extent, Matt is right, but he is mistaking symptoms for cause. If we look at the second point, which he refers to as network effects, we see the role of complex sequencing. Setting up a new university today is not the same as the creation of the Ancient universities – Oxford, Cambridge, Saint Andrew’s – the redbricks or even the plate glass universities. In the case of the American universities, a couple of hundred years of building up endowments means that promising academics in countries that do not have the traditions of freedom of speech and academic dialogue of the US are likely to end up overseas, hampering the development of an autoctonous academia. This explains Matt’s first point on cultural differences. Although I disagree with what seems a slightly Whiggish interpretation of history when Matt talks about cultural differences, the brain drain may result in reinforcing hostility to free speech. Geographic congregation for some skilled trades was noted by Adam Smith; this is a modern form of it.

There are other reasons that are essentially a result of complex sequencing. The de facto international language is English, which gives the US, along with a few other countries, a big head start.

xD.

Reflections on the London elections

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Mayor Johnson

The headline news is, of course, the victory of Boris Johnson. It is no secret (at least if you’ve been reading this blog!) that I was and remain a strong supporter of Ken Livingstone and that I have very grave doubts about the Johnson mayoralty. I have tried to draw a comparison between relations between the GLA and the boroughs on transport and on housing. On housing, there is no doubt that some boroughs – particularly Tory boroughs, and particularly Wandsworth (11%) and Westminster (10%) – are doing very little in terms of affordable housing. The figures in brackets refer to the amount of newly-built affordable housing as a fraction of total new build in the boroughs; the requirement is for fifty per cent. Despite the protestations of ‘New Boris’, many Conservatives in the capital will resent interference and instructions from on high and simply do not see affordable housing as a priority. I believe the same problems will occur when it comes to the Freedom Pass and other aspects of transport, such as bus routing. Without co-ordination and, indeed, compulsion from the centre, the boroughs will do what they perceive as best for their patch, rather than what is best for the totality of London. It represents a step back from strategic governance of London.

Staying with transport, Johnson has a pretty good starting point: the Bill authorising Crossrail is working its way through Parliament; London Overground has come on-stream and work to improve it is taking place; the East London line is being extended and plugged into London Overground. There are many challenges, not least of which is Crossrail. Johnson will, likely as not, try to make good on his pledge to scrap or, at least, redeploy the bendy buses in London. This, combined with his rather creaky mathematics on a new Routemaster, could end up in a lot of money being spent in rather inefficient and unproductive ways. If we take as a single example the 507 route that connects Waterloo and Victoria stations, we see the advantages of the bendy buses for some routes; few people are travelling without paying as most have travelcards and the ease and speed of ingress and egress is important on a route that is carrying full busloads of commuters at peak times. I understand that Mr Johnson wants to develop river services. While it sounds like a nice idea, the tidal nature of the Thames means that times will never be the same from day to day. At best, it will remain a minor part of London’s transport mix.

My concern is that much of the good work of the last eight years will be either lost or not used to best effect. Livingstone had a vision for London and a vision for London’s transport that encompassed a variety of modes, saw cycling and walking as part of the mix, and put being able to move about, even if you’re poor, as a high priority. For this reason we saw, for instance, London Overground to facilitate circular (day-to-day living) rather than just radial (in-and-out journeys for work in the centre) journeys and the driving through of the Tube to one of the poorest boroughs, Hackney, that did not have a tube station to call its own. Equally, the ambitious plans for further trams and the Greenwich Riverside Transit bus scheme and the like must lie under a cloud.

There is a particularly dark cloud over the Freedom Pass. Shortly before the election, Mr Johnson announced Brian Cooke, chair of London Travelwatch, as one of his supporters. I wrote about it at some length here, but with an advisor who has panned the Freedom Pass and a light-touch attitude towards making the boroughs fund the Pass, I am doubtful that it will be extended in any meaningful way and concerned for its future as a whole.

Beyond that, I fear that the environment and congestion will worsen in London as Johnson is at best lukewarm about the c-charge and opposed outright to the £25 charge for the most polluting cars. I also remain concerned at the effect of Boris shooting his mouth off at the wrong time.

Lib Dems

The Liberal Democrats fell apart. Brian Paddick was not the man to lead them to a bright new dawn in London. It would appear that Boris Johnson’s victory is due to Lib Dems and UKIPpers supporting Johnson, with their shares of the mayoral vote dropping 5.2 and 5.1% respectively with the Tories’ rising by 14.3%. To be honest, there’s not much more to say than that a resurgent Tory party can take votes from Lib Dems and some former ‘dissatisfied Tories’, which bodes not well for Labour in the next general election.

The Lib Dems on the Assembly now hold the balance of power. There are eleven Tories; the eight Labour AMs and two Green AMs mean that, no matter which way the BNP go, the Lib Dems must choose between red and blue. It will be interesting to see which way they generally go and whether they articulate a coherent vision for London.

The Greens

I make no secret of my positive disposition towards the Green party. I think they will be disappointed not to have achieved another seat, but given that all the traffic was towards Johnson and Labour was going hell for leather to make sure that everyone who might vote Labour did vote Labour. As my friend Aled, who ran for the Greens, says in the comments

“Despite the major party Labour-Tory ’squeeze’ which crushed the Lib Dems, we held onto our 3 seats and weren’t that far off 3. Our vote stayed pretty much the same as last time and our constituency votes rose in most places, meaning we saved all deposits except one.

We were also a clear fourth in Mayoral 1st Preferences and came 3rd on 2nd Preferences (however meaningless that is!).”

The BNP

The BNP have a seat on the assembly. Across the capital, 5.33% of voters chose to vote for them. It behoves all of us to watch Richard Barnbrook like a hawk. The only good thing is that the BNP’s share of the vote barely rose, by one-fifth of one per cent, and that they were unable to win a constituency member even in City & East. There, they did poll 9.62%, which is still pretty worrying.

I am not sure what long-term effects the BNP’s victory will have. It is their first win off a local council, but they had been hoping for two seats. They will seek to capitalise on the publicity and the salary and expenses will be useful; however, their previous elected officials have been woefully inadequate, frequently not turned up to meetings and attracted allegations of sleaze pretty quickly. It will hopefully galvanise people to work against the BNP in east London, much as happened in the West Midlands. In the short term, I am very concerned about what will happen; it is all to easy to see an increase in racially-motivated violence, as happened in Tower Hamlets when the BNP gained a councillor.

The Left

The left don’t matter in London. Despite being able to cast a second preference for Ken, only 16,976 gave their first preferences to Lindsey German and the Left List for the mayoralty. By way of comparison, their 0.68% share of first preferences is less than the 0.91% for UKIP, 1.60% for the Christian Choice and represents slightly less than a quarter of the 2.84% who voted for Richard Barnbrook of the BNP.

There is scarcely more comfort for the left on the Assembly. Respect (George Galloway) only ran in one constituency, City & East, and came third behind the Conservatives. The Left List (the SWP part of Respect) did best in the Enfield & Haringey constituency, where they won 3.5% of the vote.

I would go so far as to say that the only thing achieved by the left parties was to stop the BNP getting a second seat on the Assembly.

One London

UKIP/Veritas/One London have disappeared; I cannot say I am particularly surprised or disappointed. Damian Hockney and Peter Hulme Cross were non-entities on the Assembly. Hockney stood down from the mayoral election after protesting that media attention was all on the large parties; given that Sian Berry received quite a lot of coverage and Lindsay German a fair amount, I think the charge doesn’t stand up. Given that Hockney and Hulme Cross stood as UKIP, ditched them for Veritas and then became One London when Kilroy-Silk’s party fell apart, I’d say that it was pretty obvious that they were going to be kicked off the Assembly.

Labour

It’s bad. Of that, there can be no doubt. It’s not quite time to write Labour off for the next election; not yet, anyway. For many people, myself included, this is the first, major setback at elections in our adult life; I was not old enough to vote in 1997 and a period without the executive of London may prove a salutatory experience.

Labour did, in fact, gain one seat on the Assembly and the vote for Ken was slightly up, by seven-tenths of a percent, on last time round. There is still a viable, progressive coalition in London but against a strong opposition, it is not enough on its own unless every ‘core’ Labour supporter turns out to vote. I suspect that the current state of the national party did not help, but the performance of Ken and the London Labour party against a rubbish overall picture was remarkable.

Three final points

The Evening Standard was cheerleading for Johnson and against Livingstone for some time. I may return to this in future, but the unique position of the paper as the only paid-for, London-wide newspaper (if London Lite and thelondonpaper can even be considered newspapers) gives it a powerful position. I am well aware that it is a private newspaper, but the effect is similar to the BBC campaigning for the Tories. It may be time to launch the Morning Courier.

The London Assembly has been a bit anonymous. This is a subject I will definitely return to as individual AMs and the Assembly as a whole need to be more visible.

Beyond London, the lessons are fewer as the demographics of the capital are very different to the rest of the country. The main issues is that voters are leaving the Lib Dems for the Tories and that, at least when there is no European election, UKIP voters are joining them. I don’t know whether this will impact on the timing of the general election.

xD.

Dave Hill’s ten reasons to vote for Ken Livingstone

Posted on by David Landon Cole

You can read them in full, with the logic behind them, on Liberal Conspiracy.

One: Livingstone Has Better Policies

Two: Livingstone Has Made The Best Joke

Three: Brian Paddick & His Partner

Four: Livingstone Is A Better Politician

Five: London Needs To Be Bossed From The CentreSix: Livingstone Is A Better Leader

Seven: The Evening Standard Will Be Gutted If Livingstone Wins

Eight: The Tories Don’t Really Deserve To Win

Nine: Livingstone Knows More Of London And Londoners

Ten: We Can’t Be Sure What A Mayor Johnson Would Do

Kevin Maguire of the Daily Mirror also has a cut-out-and-keep guide for whatever happens tomorrow.

There is another good reason to vote, whoever you cast your vote for: a higher turnout makes it harder for the BNP to have people elected to the assembly.

xD.

Humhprey Lyttelon, 1921 – 2008

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Humphrey Lyttelton blowing his hornI caught the last few seconds of Newsnight Review to see a picture of Humphrey Lyttleton and my heart sank. It turned out that he died this evening at seven o’ clock. Humph and ISIHAC hold a special attraction for me.

I first discovered Humphrey Lyttelton where I would probably hear him most often; in my father’s car. He was chairing I’m Sorry I Haven’t a Clue, one of the silliest and funniest radio programmes ever to be broadcast. It turned an obscure station on the Northern line – Mornington Crescent – into a monument to the character of the English, made familiar figures out of the lovely Samantha and the rippling Sven and, on more than one occasion, caused Dad to pull onto the hard shoulder because the risk of him causing an accident because he and I were laughing at Humph on the radio.

When I’m Sorry I Haven’t a Clue was commissioned, radio comedy was in a sorry state. Consisting almost entirely of panel games, it was bland and it was formulaic. The show was to be an unscripted version of I’m Sorry I’ll Read That Again; if jazz was the antidote to scripted music, who better to lead the antidote to panel games than a famous jazz trumpter – ‘Humph’.

I suspect that for many people, Humphrey Lyttelton was first and foremost the chair of ISIHAC. He was, of course, a fantastic musicia; indeed, he was described by Louis Armstrong as ‘that cat in England who swings his ass off’. His dedication to music, I think, is without question. In September 1943, he landed at Salerno with a pistol in one hand and his trumpet in the other. I won’t say any more than that it is well worth listening to any one of his records. Incidentally, his own record label was Calligraph, named after one of his passions, calligraphy. He was the president of the Society for Italic Handwriting and was at one point a cartoonist of some note.

Humph was sent to a steel mill in Port Talbot as a young man to see if he had the makings of a captain of industry. The outcome was rather the opposite, as he became a lifelong socialist, albeit, as he described himself, ‘a romantic socialist.

Lyttelton was, despite his protestations to the contrary, modern to the last. His website, humphreylyttleton.com, carries a message that ends with Humph in introspective mode.

“As we journey through life, discarding baggage along the way, we should keep an iron grip, to the very end, on the capacity for silliness. It preserves the soul from dessication.”

I think it is fair to say that Lyttelton was silly – gloriously, wonderfully silly – throughout his life.

Humphrey Richard Adeane Lyttelton, cartoonist, calligrapher, columnist, jazz trumpeter and host of I’m Sorry I Haven’t a Clue. Born Eton, 23 May 1921, died London, 25 April 2008.

xD.

Through a press release, darkly

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Chris Dillow is less than impressed with Jack Straw and Alistair Campbell as he and most people regard them as having negative credibility. I feel that Chris – and given his intellectual firepower, I’m rather worried about saying this – is rather missing the point. He’s not the audience – it just happens that he’s hearing the message. I’ll come back to that later; first, the argument.

Let us assume that Mr Straw’s intentions are genuine and that he doesn’t want the maximum period of detention without trial to be extended to forty-two days.

As it stands, Gordon Brown has two options – to keep going with the policy, or to scrap it. Each option has its pros and cons (which doubtlessly vary depending on your point of view). There will be a few particular things that Mr Brown is considering, not least of which will be his standing in the polls. The predictions for the urns are not good and, to cap it all, Charles Clarke is once again doing the rounds trying to drum opposition to the PM for any reason at all.

If Jack Straw were to vote against the policy, or indicate that he was definitely going to vote against the policy, he would have to leave the Cabinet. That reduces his ability to influence Cabinet colleagues, including the PM, makes him look like an ingrate and (from Jack Straw’s point of view) doesn’t help pay the mortgage. Crucially, it also makes it harder for the PM to scotch the policy by delaying it as the PM would have to show that he was ‘strong’ in the face of internal opposition, particularly as Charles Clarke would probably start touting Straw as a stalking horse for the party leadership.

Equally, merely pushing against the forty-two days doesn’t do much either as it doesn’t change the options available or how palatable they are to the ultimate decision-maker.

Jack Straw’s actions – showing loyalty to the big man and to collective decision-making while making it easier and more permissible for more rank-and-file MPs to express their displeasure and, if necessary vote against the bill – poison one of the two options as the risk of a defeat (a bad result for any government) rises and going down that route is more difficult even if the MP wins. However, it shows that there is at least as much support for the other choice and makes it easier for it to be kicked into touch or lured into a committee and quietly strangled.

Alastair Campbell probably gave all of ten minutes’ thought to that letter. BAA will have their PR agency who will have wanted some – any – good news about T5. Campbell knows full well that many people dislike him (although some have a grudging respect). However, the audience might not be the great unwashed, but Ferrovial, the higher-ups of BAA or anyone else. The publication of Mr Campbell’s letter might, for all I know, be the only positive coverage of T5 in the mainstream press1 but it at least, in the press book, says that there has been some positive coverage.

Now, as promised, why this matters.

All the wonderful, new means of communications we have make it a lot easier to have a public conversation but much harder to have a private conversation between lots of people. There is no effective means of Jack Straw talking to “all MPs” or “all power-brokers” or somesuch as the categories are too large and too porous; an email setting out his position (if I’m right above) would very quickly end up in the public domain. The only alternative is to reduce that risk while still getting your message across and, as it happens, an easy way to reach “power brokers”2 is through the newspapers. Just because something is in the papers doesn’t mean it’s meant for the entire readership3 and so it doesn’t mean that the prima facie interpretation holds.

It can also impoverish communication between large groups unless (and I would say until) there is an acceptance that organisations, particularly political parties, have to be able to debate within themselves and that participants in those debates will include senior, serving politicians. As well as things being misunderstood, they will be deliberately taken out of context which causes people to couch and cage their words, making honest debate harder.

xD.

1.Although people from my company have made a total of eight trips through T5 in the past week without any problems.
2.I can’t think of a better phrase, so please imagine those to be rather large quotation marks. Suggestions on a postcard to the comments box, please!
3.Viz, Guardian Sports

Things not to do when you’re sixteen points behind

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Number One – be divisive and pursue old vendettas.

There cannot be many things within the Labour party that would unite Luke Akehurst and Peter Kenyon. Charles Clarke has managed to find one. Strangely enough, ordinary Labour party members don’t think that now is the opportune moment, shortly before local and London elections, to start talking about a coup within the party. Charles Clarke seems to be doing the rounds, days before an election, and talking about getting rid of Brown.

I do not think, even if the upcoming elections went badly, that we should change our leader. Even if, however, I thought that was the case, now would be just about the worst possible time to broach the subject. It can wait a few days.

Luke makes a good point at the post I like to above: “prolonged speculation would be the worst possible scenario”. Indeed, as we saw over the election that wasn’t, prevarication is just damaging. I hope that Charles Clarke – if the story reported in the Independent is correct – is taken to one side and told in no uncertain terms that his day has passed. I wrote some time ago about Clarke’s antics – September of 2006 – and a bizarre hatred he seems to have for Mr Brown. It does no-one, least of all the party, any favours.

There is something going on around a suggestion from Calder Valley CLP that, when there is a vacancy for leader, the minimum number of nominating MPs should be reduced from 12.5% to 7%. I probably support the measure as it should be pretty bloody difficult to fire a leader and should certainly be out of the reach of a small group of malcontents (and just for once I don’t mean the Campaign Group) but choice shouldn’t be unnecessarily restricted when there is a vacancy. It seems that some of the promoters are from the John McDonnell campaign, although that doesn’t make much difference either way.

xD.

PS Thanks to Alice for spotting the silly error deliberate mistake in the title

The Counter-terrorism Bill and coroners

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Section 42 (4) (b) (ii) of the Counter-Terrorism Bill, as it seeks to extend detention without charge to forty-two days, has attracted some considerable criticism. Unfortunately, it is not the only part of the bill that is, at best, distinctly ill-considered and with considerable scope for abuse. Serious consideration must also be given to clauses 64 and 65, which can be found on page 50 of this PDF of the bill. Clause 64 allows the Home Secretary to issue a certificate requiring an inquest to be held without a jury or discharging a jury mid-inquest. Clause 65 allows the Home Secretary to discharge a coroner and appoint a coroner of their own choosing. The two powers can be exercised simultaneously; that is to say, the Home Secretary would have the power, if they thought the an inquest would embarrass the government, to discharge the jury and the coroner and have the inquest started again without a jury and with a coroner of the Home Secretary’s choosing.

Inquests are unusual in English law in that they are the only inquisitorial proceeding, as opposed to the adversarial form that every other legal proceeding takes.

It is worth remembering that there are two main objections to the provision for forty-two days’ detention provided for in S42 (4) (b) (ii). The first is deontological; the period of time that any entity or person acting under the law (ultimately dependent on Weber’s definition of the state) should detain anyone else should be kept to the absolute minimum as the potential exists that, before trial, the person is innocent and so their detention is unjust. It is the same logic that insists justice should be speedy; detention before charge should be speedy1.

The second is utilitarian. While I’m sure some people will disagree with me1, I do not think that the current government is an evil monster that wants to abolish all our civil liberties. However, I do not think that the current government should hand a carte blanche to every single, future government. The risks and potential harms of the 42 days’ detention, and the deeply unsatisfactory safeguards – that people could be taken off the street if they threatened a future government (say, 41 days before an election) and held incommunicado – far outweight any potential benefit. Liberty make that point very well in this briefing document (PDF).

I feel the same applies to S64 and S65. Firstly, the idea that someone in the executive should be able to wander into a judicial proceeding and change things is opening the process up to abuse. It is different from making provisions for national security – things can be heard in camera – and, in any case, it should not be possible to change things in the middle of the proceeding, but only a priori. Secondly, the risks are significant as they would allow interference, as I have said, and set a worrying precedent for expansion.

If nothing else, connections will be made between a stroppy Oxfordshire coroner, a move to Gloucestershire for repatriating the bodies of people who have died in Afghanistan and Iraq, a stroppy Gloucestershire coroner and then this bill; it does look as if the Government is trying to cover its tracks.

xD.

1 – the definition, not the blogger.