BNP dismisses legal action threat

The British National Party has dismissed threats of legal action over its membership policies by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

The commission said it had written to the party over possible breaches of the law in the BNP's constitution, membership rules and recruitment.

It asked the BNP to pledge to comply with the Race Relations Act by 20 July or face a potential legal injunction.

But BNP leader Nick Griffin said the party's rules were "entirely legal".

Mr Griffin - who was elected as an MEP for the North West on 4 June - said the BNP was an exempted organisation under Section 25 and Section 26 of the Race Relations Act.

He said this meant "ethnic groups who need special protection such as the English in their own country, who are now second class citizens" were "entitled to discriminate on that basis and not on the grounds of colour".

He added: "We are not discriminating on grounds of colour."

On 4 June, the BNP won their first two MEPs in the European Parliament elections.

'Deliberate omission'

In a statement, the commission said the BNP's constitution and membership criteria appeared to discriminate on the grounds of race and colour, in breach of the Race Relations Act.

The party's rules appeared to restrict membership to those within what the BNP regarded as particular "ethnic groups", the commission added.

It also said the party's website asked job applicants to supply a membership number, which appeared to be in breach of legislation banning the "refusal or deliberate omission to offer employment on the basis of non-membership of an organisation".

The statement added: "The commission is therefore concerned that the BNP may have acted, and be acting, illegally."

John Wadham, the commission's legal director, insisted it had a duty to take action against possible breaches of anti-discrimination laws.

He said: "The legal advice we have received indicates that the British National Party's constitution and membership criteria, employment practices and provision of services to constituents and the public may breach discrimination laws which all political parties are legally obliged to uphold."

The commission said it had received around 50 recent calls from members of the public about the membership policy of the BNP, although it is understood it was already investigating the party.

Teachers

The BNP's Deputy press officer John Walker said the party would not be making a formal response to the commission at this stage as it wanted to "wait until the Equalities Bill has gone through".

"We are not going to respond to threats like this. We will look at it, but it is an entirely politically-motivated attack," he told BBC News.

The Equalities Bill, currently making its way through Parliament, is expected to include a move to outlaw the BNP's membership policy, which is limited to various groups it defines as "indigenous Caucasian".

Mr Walker said the BNP would be prepared to change its membership rules "to remain within the law".

But he added: "I don't think we should be bullied by outside forces. They are asking us to change our whole political ideology."

On Monday, the Department for Children, Schools and Families said it was considering banning teachers in England from joining the BNP.

In its constitution, the BNP says it exists to represent the "collective National, Environmental, Political, Racial, Folkish, Social, Cultural, Religious and Economic interests of the indigenous Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norse folk communities of Britain and those we regard as closely related and ethnically assimilated or assimilable aboriginal members of the European race also resident in Britain". continues here

Should the BNP give in to this political tyranny, concerning its admittance policy by the Equality and Human Rights Commission?

Force disciplines police blogger

A serving detective whose anonymous blog carried criticisms of government ministers and police bureaucracy has been disciplined by his force.

The action, by Lancashire Constabulary, follows the exposure of the blogger "Night Jack" by the Times newspaper.

He was unmasked after the High Court rejected his plea that his anonymity be preserved "in the public interest".

Lancashire Constabulary said the blogger, named as Det Con Richard Horton, had received a written warning.

A spokeswoman said: "The commentary in the blog is indeed the work of a serving Lancashire detective and clearly the views and opinions expressed are those of the author himself and not those of the wider Constabulary.

"We have conducted a full internal investigation and the officer accepts that parts of his public commentary have fallen short of the standards of professional behaviour we expect of our police officers."

Earlier, Mr Justice Eady refused an injunction to prevent the Times identifying "Night Jack", who won an Orwell prize for blogging in April.

The judge said said blogging was "essentially a public rather than a private activity".

The blogger's lawyer had argued that preserving his anonymity was in the public interest.

Hugh Tomlinson QC said thousands of people who communicated via the internet under a cloak of anonymity would be "horrified" to think the law would do nothing to protect their identities if someone carried out the necessary detective work to unmask them.

Local criminals

But the judge ruled any right of privacy on the part of the blogger would be likely to be outweighed by a countervailing public interest in revealing that a particular police officer had been making such contributions.

In his blog "Night Jack - An English Detective" an unnamed officer had chronicled his working life in an unnamed UK town with descriptions of local criminals and his struggle with police bureaucracy.

Mr Justice Eady said the blog contained opinions on a number of social and political issues relating to the police and the administration of justice.

He added "Night Jack" had expressed strong opinions on matters of political controversy and had also criticised a number of ministers.

The judge said the blogger had known he risked disciplinary action if his employers found out one of its officers was communicating to the public in such a way.

This was one of the main reasons why "Night Jack" was keen to maintain his anonymity, he added.

Entitled to know

Rejecting the argument that all the blogger's readers needed to know was that he was a serving police officer, the judge said it was often useful, in assessing the value of an opinion or argument, to know its source.

"For so long as there is anonymity, it would obviously be difficult to make any such assessment.

"More generally, when making a judgment as to the value of comments made about police affairs by 'insiders', it may sometimes help to know how experienced or senior the commentator is."

He did not accept that it was part of the court's function to protect police officers who were, or thought they might be, acting in breach of police discipline regulations from coming to the attention of their superiors. continues here

And you really believe we live in a land of free speech, wake up!! We are permitted to voice opinions in compliance with their repressive worldview, yet should we differ we are repressed. However such is the way with the left, with egalitarians and their ilk, amazingly they are able to foist their own sins upon the right, able to portray us as inherently evil and they, (excuse the pun) whiter than white.

SHOP STAFF WILL TAKE CHARGE OF ID CARDS

STAFF in supermarkets, post offices and even photo shops will be asked to take fingerprints and facial scans for the new ID card, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said yesterday.


Card opponent Phil Booth, of No2ID, said: “It’s almost comical that the organ­isation in charge of national security thinks they can trust the local camera shop with your most private information.” continues here continues here

Britain's freedoms under threat from 'Big Brother security state', warns Director of Public Prosecutions

The chief prosecutor has warned the surveillance society is threatening to 'break the back of freedom'. 

Sir Ken Macdonald, Director of Public Prosecutions, said the state was poised to take powers to keep information on everyone and 'we might end up living with something we can't bear.' 

His message - delivered ten days before he steps down as head of the Crown Prosecution Service - was a parting shot at ministers who aim to make every phone call, email, test message and internet visit available to police and security services. 

Sir Ken said: 'We need to take very great care not to fall into a way of life in which freedom's back is broken by the relentless pressure of a security state.' 

The warning comes amid growing public concern over state snooping. 

Some 4.4million people - many of them non-criminals - are on a DNA database, CCTV cameras routinely film pedestrians and motorists and the Government continues to plan an ID card system. 

Last week Home Secretary Jacqui Smith was accused of planning surveillance on a Big Brother scale when she announced moves to give police and security services access to all private electronic communications. 

Sir Ken attacked the spread of surveillance in a CPS lecture. He said: 'Let me in my final public speech as DPP repeat my call for levelheadedness and for legislative restraint in an age of dangerous movements.' 

While technology had brought immeasurable benefits, Sir Ken added, it 'also gives the state enormous powers of access to knowledge and information about each one of us and the ability to collect and store it at will. Every second of every day in everything we do.' 

The DPP said: 'Of course modern technology is of critical importance to the struggle against serious crime. Used wisely, it can protect us. 

'But we need to understand that decisions taken in the next few months and years about how the state may use these powers, and to what extent, are likely to be irreversible.  

Sir Ken said the best way to face down terrorist threats was to strengthen democratic institutions and the rule of law. 

His period as DPP had seen a relentless struggle against terrorism and a conviction rate 'unmatched in the fair trial world.' It had been done 'with full respect for our historical norms and our liberal constitution'. 

He added: 'It is difficult to see who will maintain a cool head if governments do not. Or who will protect our constitution if governments unwittingly disarm it.' 

Tories praised the speech. Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve said: 'Sir Ken has been at the forefront of our counterterrorism effort for several years, so he knows the security challenges we face. 

'This Government's approach has all too often proved cavalier - unjustified powers, sprawling databases and excessive use of surveillance powers risk undermining both our security and our way of life.' 

The Home Office said last night: 'The Government agrees with the DPP that technology and communications data is critically important in tackling all forms of serious crime as well as in the fight against terrorism. 

'The Government also agrees that care is needed to agree what safeguards are needed, in addition to the many we have in place already, to provide a solid legal framework which protects civil liberties. continues here

Government faces fight from within for spy database

A Home Office revolt is stalling a plan to store our e-mails and calls but a more sinister one may take its place 

Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, faces a revolt from her senior officials over plans to build a central database holding information on every telephone call, e-mail and internet visit made in the UK. 

A “significant body of Home Office officials dealing with serious and organised crime” are privately lobbying against the plans, a leaked memo has revealed. 

They believe the proposals are “impractical, disproportionate, politically unattractive and possibly unlawful from a human rights perspective”, the memo says. 

Their stance puts them at loggerheads with the spy-masters at GCHQ, the government’s eavesdropping centre in Cheltenham, who have been driving through the plans.  

The Home Office rebels appear to have forced Smith to stall plans to announce a bill in the Queen’s speech authorising the database. She has instead ordered her officials to review the proposals. 

This weekend a top law enforcement body further dented the government’s case for the database. Jack Wraith, of the data communications group of the Association of Chief Police Officers, described the plans as “mission creep”. He said there was an “inherent fear” of the data falling into the wrong hands. 

“If someone’s got enough personal data on you and they don’t afford it the right protection and that data falls into the wrong hands, then it becomes a threat to you,” he said. 

Smith is already studying less explosive but equally effective alternatives. One option involves a system based on sending automated requests to databases already held by telephone and internet firms. 

Privacy campaigners believe the proposals form part of a “pentagon” of five huge databases, all linked together in real time to create the ultimate surveillance society. 

This would include compulsory registration of all Britain’s 72m mobile phones, more than 40m of which are prepaid. Terrorists and criminals prefer to hide behind the anonymity of prepaid phones, so a communications database needs to include accurate details of prepaid subscriber details. 

The Home Office yesterday declined to comment on the plans. But the office of Richard Thomas, the information commissioner, said it expects this register to be included in the database proposed in the draft communications data bill. 

Vodafone is believed to be one of the mobile phone firms now drawing up plans for compulsory customer registration. Such a system, already used in Europe, would require a passport or ID to register a phone. 

Phones can be located to within a few yards using cell site analysis – which tracks mobile phone users as they move from one signalling area to the next. 

The system would then link with the automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) system of traffic cameras, which provides live coverage of motor-ways and main roads. It, in turn, is linked to the DVLA in Swansea which holds the records of all registered vehicles in the country. 

By monitoring a single telephone call it would be possible to identify exactly where its user was and the registration number of the car in which he or she was travelling. This car could then be found within seconds by the ANPR cameras and tracked along its journey. 

Simon Davies, of Privacy International, said: “If you can do this in real time, with all the databases being interoperable, you have absolute perfect surveillance.” 

The plans for a communications database are equally intrusive. At their heart is a massive extension in an existing network of black boxes plugged into the internet. They intercept data on the web and extract information to be routed into computers held by MI5 and GCHQ, if required. 

Little is known about the extent of the system, but sources say that last year GCHQ was given £1 billion to extend it. Total costs for the project are estimated to be as high as £12 billion. 

Advocates of the database say terrorists are stateless and highly mobile and their communications are hard to detect among the billions of pieces of data on the internet. Last year about 14% of all calls were made over the internet, prompting police to complain that they are losing the ability to track calls. 

Unlike telephone companies, which must keep data for billing, internet call firms such as Skype have no reason to keep the records. 

A European Union directive introduced after the London and Madrid terror attacks compels service providers to keep all telephone and e-mail data for two years.This requirement will be extended to cover websites in March. But it does not include calls via the internet. Anyway, call and e-mail data is held separately in hundreds of company databases. continues here

New law to allow police to collect DNA in secret from teacups

MI5 and the police may be allowed to secretly collect genetic samples from items such as cigarette butts and teacups under new laws that could massively expand the national DNA database.

The powers would allow investigators to break in to suspects’ homes to collect DNA which could then be shared with foreign governments to check for links to crime and terrorism.

The new law, being discussed by Parliament, would mean the ‘stolen’ samples – thousands of which have already been taken by the security services – would be admissible in court and at a stroke hugely expand the Government’s controversial DNA database.

But human rights activists fear the new powers could lead to more innocent people having their DNA stored and, due to cross-contamination, being wrongly accused of crimes or terrorism.

The proposals, which are contained in the Counter-Terrorism Bill, were outlined last week by Security Minister Lord West in the wake of Labour’s unsuccessful attempt to introduce legislation to hold terror suspects for 42 days without charge.

The move comes despite growing fears about the rapid expansion of the national database, which stores the details of 4.2million people, including 573,639 who have not been convicted, cautioned or reprimanded for any offence.

Lord West said: ‘During surveillance, a DNA sample may be obtained without a warrant. A good example might be where a person discards a cigarette or a drinks container. It can be collected covertly and a sample taken.

‘Or, should a covert human intelligence source be used, the person under surveillance could visit the source’s house and a sample could be taken from a teacup.

‘There is a real need to share this data internationally, especially where terrorism is concerned.’

But opponents say taking DNA samples without their being cross-contaminated is difficult, even for trained specialists.

Last night Dr Helen Wallace of watchdog group Genewatch said: ‘This kind of DNA collection leads to a real danger of cross-contamination or genetic samples being taken from a person who may prove to be innocent.’ continues here

Government unveils 'Big Brother' plan: Now they want to snoop on every phone call, email and text message

Plans for a massive expansion of ‘Big Brother’ state surveillance to cover every phone call, email, text message and internet visit in Britain were unveiled yesterday.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith claimed
that storing details of individuals’ communications was vital to prevent further terrorist atrocities.

Activities which will be subject to snooping for the first time include visits
to social networking sites such as Facebook, auction sites such as eBay, gaming websites and chatrooms.

Police and security services will not be
able to access the precise content but will know each site visited, and to whom and when a phone call, text message or email was sent.

If this sets alarm bells ringing, they could seek a Ministerial warrant to intercept exactly what is being sent, including the content.

The billions of pieces of data are likelyto be stored for a year or more. The costis estimated to be at least £1billion, andcould be far higher.

Last night MPs and privacy groups attacked the proposals as 'Stalinist', 'Orwellian' and a reversal of the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

One opponent said: ‘They are making us all suspects.’

A leaked memo written by sources close to the project revealed it was fraught with technical difficulties.

Officials are split between placing the vast amount of data to be collected on a huge central Government database or forcing service providers to store the information,to be accessed on demand.

Currently, the option being worked on is to request data from the service providers, the memo reveals. They are likely to pass on extra costs to customers.

Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve said: ‘These proposals would mark a substantial shift in the powers of the state to obtain personal information on individuals.

'Given the Government’s poor record on protecting data and running databases there
needs to be a full and proper debate.

‘The public will also be acutely aware of how, under this Government, surveillance powers designed to combat terrorism and serious organised crime have been used by local authorities to investigate things like fly-tipping. This would be absolutely unacceptable.’

Liberal Democrat spokesman Chris Huhne said: ‘The Government’s Orwellian plans for a vast database of our private communications are deeply worrying.

‘Ministers claim the database will only be used in terrorist cases, but there is now a long list of cases from the arrest of Walter Wolfgang for heckling at a Labour conference to the freezing of Icelandic assets where anti-terrorism law has beenused for purposes for which it was not intended.

'These proposals are incompatible with a free country and a free people.’

Phil Booth, of the NO2ID privacy campaign, said: ‘This is the Stalinist vision which we always knew was on the agenda. Monitoring the entire population is a complete abhorrence, reversing the presumption of innocent until proven guilty and making us all suspects.’

But senior security and police services were adamant that, without the new powers, lives would be put at risk.

They said some investigations have already been affected by criminals who use technology to avoid detection, by plotting online through social networking sites orinteractive games.

‘Criminals are getting more sophisticated in using this technology and they are going to exploit it unless we do something,’ one source said.

Miss Smith yesterday admitted the public had reason to be concerned.

In a speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research thinktank, she said: ‘Of course, even if there had not been events [data losses], the British public would have every right to be sceptical about a state activity that involves the collection of data.’

But she said that, without increasing their capacity to store data, the police and security services would have to consider a ‘massive expansion of surveillance’. continues here 

Resounding defeat in the House of Lords leaves Brown's 42-day terror detention plans in tatters

Gordon Brown last night dumped plans to extend the controversial detention of terror suspects to 42 days after a humiliating defeat by peers. 

In a major victory for civil liberty campaigners, the Lords rejected the proposals by a massive majority of 191. 

After the vote in the Upper House, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith delivered an emergency statement to the Commons saying the plans would be removed from the Government's Counter-Terrorism Bill.



She told MPs the highly-contentious proposals would live on in the form of 'standby' bill.

In a blistering attack, she told MPs: 'There is no greater liberty than the liberty of individuals not to be blown up on British streets or in British skies.

'I don't believe that it is enough to cross our fingers and hope for the best.'

Pointing at the Tories, she added: 'Some may take the security of Britain lightly. I don't.'

Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve said he 'profoundly objected' to her accusations that the Tory party was soft on terror.

He added that the new Bill, which was last night drafted at short notice following the Lords defeat, was 'the most bizarre thing I have ever read.'

A powerful coalition of Labour peers had joined forces with Opposition peers to vote down the proposals by 309 votes to 118.

The House of Commons had only narrowly passed the proposals by a majority of just nine in June.

Mr Brown had insisted a 42-day detention period - an extension from the current 28 days - was vital to deal with more complex plots. continues here

Unmanned spy planes to police Britain

The Government is drawing up plans to use unmanned "drone" aircraft currently deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan to counter terrorism and aid police operations in Britain.


The MoD is carrying out research and development to enable the spy planes, which are equipped with highly sophisticated monitoring equipment that allows them to secretly track and photograph suspects without their knowledge, to be deployed within three years.

The plans have been backed by the House of Commons Defence Committee but have attracted criticism from civil liberties campaigners concerned about the implications of covert surveillance of civilians.

The unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) can obtain clear images while flying at up to 50,000ft. If ministers give the scheme the go-ahead the UK will be among the first countries to use UAVs to monitor its own citizens.

The Israeli military operates them over Palestinian cities such as Gaza and Ramallah, while the US Customs and Border Protection agency flies them over the Mexican border to detect illegal migrants along specified routes.

Gareth Crossman, director of policy at the civil rights watchdog Liberty, said: "The question is not so much about the technology but what one does with it. We have quite definite laws about where CCTV can be used but of course with UAVs you have much greater ability to gather material in private spaces and this would lead to concern."

He added: "If they are used to simply hover to gain random information then that would obviously be a matter of worry and a civil liberty issue."

UAVs are currently restricted to military installations in Salisbury Plain because of regulations banning them from using the same airspace as civil aircraft. However, a commercial consortium led by BAE Systems will provide the safety measures necessary for the planes to fly over the UK within three years.

The MPs' report says the MoD is "closely involved with the development of procedures and regulations which allow UAVs to operate in national and Nato airspace. But the committee indicates that the ministry should do more."

The BAE Systems consortium is partly funded by a number of government agencies, but not the MoD, which has an observer status on the project, called the Astraea programme. The next stage of the project is due to cost £44m, with private companies providing half of that.

The committee says: "In the response to our report we expect the MoD to set out why it supports the Astraea programme only in an 'observer role' and its future plans with regard to this programme."

The MPs say full consideration should be given to evidence given to the committee by a weapons company that meeting the air safety requirements would open the way for UAVs to be used in disaster relief, crowd control, anti-terror surveillance, maritime searches and support for the Coastguard, police, fire and intelligence services.

The UAVs will give law enforcement agencies huge scope for surveillance. Robert Emerson, a security analyst who specialises in deciphering aerial images, said: "Satellite images can be affected by clouds and lack of light, with UAVs you can avoid that by choosing the height at which you fly. There is now also Google Earth, but these are often old images out of date. There is tremendous potential in material gathered by UAVs." continues here