Monday, March 14, 2005
ID and election
The Reg has more on the ID Scheme being postponed until after the election, and the political strategies involved in its delay alongside the SOCA bill.
Shambles
Reality just as rushed as the law its based on. What now of the phrase "Preparing for emergencies", when its originators don't know the meaning of the word?
After the fiasco of the Foundation Hospitals and the ongoing mess that the ID card bill is in (information? what's that?), I thought things couldn't get much worse. Fortunately last week proved that there are depths of ineptitude rife amongst our governing elite that we haven't even begun to explore yet - hurrah!
Anyway, good to see suspicion rules the day. Safety through paranoia is the most safe anyone can be.
After the fiasco of the Foundation Hospitals and the ongoing mess that the ID card bill is in (information? what's that?), I thought things couldn't get much worse. Fortunately last week proved that there are depths of ineptitude rife amongst our governing elite that we haven't even begun to explore yet - hurrah!
Anyway, good to see suspicion rules the day. Safety through paranoia is the most safe anyone can be.
Friday, March 04, 2005
"The ID cards Bill is dead"
NO2ID reports (via e-mail - sign up here) that the government is set to abandon ID cards until after the election, according to this article in the Independent. It looks like the Tories have slowly (almost creakily) realised how bad the bill is, and how much they have to gain by opposing it.
"The ID cards Bill is dead," one minister told The Independent yesterday.
This gives plenty of time to assemble more resources, more campaign material and more call for a reasoned debate over the whole shenanigan. Good.
"The ID cards Bill is dead," one minister told The Independent yesterday.
This gives plenty of time to assemble more resources, more campaign material and more call for a reasoned debate over the whole shenanigan. Good.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Downing Street Says...: "Terror"
Worth checking out: Downing Street Says...: Terror. Watch (ok, read) the PM squirm over the definition of "terrorists" and "700". "...there were distinctions to be made between different kinds of threat and the threat different people posed" - a grey scale then? I think you'll find that such distinctions may prove harder to implement legally in practice. Enjoy such gems as:
"...what the Prime Minister was most concerned about, as always, was that people should focus on the substance and not interpretation or speculation. The substance, as we had said consistently since 9/11, was that this country did face a threat. That threat varied but it was serious."
So that's a definite probability in continuous variability, then. And how about:
"We were concerned about [suspects] because, potentially, they were planning or considering potential terrorist action. Put to him that the Prime Minister had implied that these people were actively engaged, not merely considering terrorist action, the PMOS said that if someone was in any way suspected of being part of a potential terrorist action, no matter how small that part may be, that was the correct phraseology."
"suspected of being part of a potential ... no matter how small"? If we use this as a definition, then I'm getting MI5 to blag my postman, who probably buys illegal DVDs with the probable knowledge that this may fund something-or-other.
Also spot the avoidance of answering the question relating to what parties would be considered "terrorist".
Meanwhile, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has published its latest progress report, including a recap of its take on the ID Cards Bill and the SOCA Bill. Nothing new though - see "Human Rights? What they?" I do note, though, that the HO have published their response in handy, easy-to-read scanned-in-fax format. Espect to go crazy after page 4.
I'll try to post a better breakdown, but so far there's a lot of speculation as to how address-collection will work. The phrase "In a small minority of cases there may be a need to..." makes me laugh - surely the whole Bill is designed to "catch" the small "minority of cases" that make such schemes necessary in the first place? Or are they saying that actually, the majority of the population are scheming little toe-rags?
"...what the Prime Minister was most concerned about, as always, was that people should focus on the substance and not interpretation or speculation. The substance, as we had said consistently since 9/11, was that this country did face a threat. That threat varied but it was serious."
So that's a definite probability in continuous variability, then. And how about:
"We were concerned about [suspects] because, potentially, they were planning or considering potential terrorist action. Put to him that the Prime Minister had implied that these people were actively engaged, not merely considering terrorist action, the PMOS said that if someone was in any way suspected of being part of a potential terrorist action, no matter how small that part may be, that was the correct phraseology."
"suspected of being part of a potential ... no matter how small"? If we use this as a definition, then I'm getting MI5 to blag my postman, who probably buys illegal DVDs with the probable knowledge that this may fund something-or-other.
Also spot the avoidance of answering the question relating to what parties would be considered "terrorist".
Meanwhile, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has published its latest progress report, including a recap of its take on the ID Cards Bill and the SOCA Bill. Nothing new though - see "Human Rights? What they?" I do note, though, that the HO have published their response in handy, easy-to-read scanned-in-fax format. Espect to go crazy after page 4.
I'll try to post a better breakdown, but so far there's a lot of speculation as to how address-collection will work. The phrase "In a small minority of cases there may be a need to..." makes me laugh - surely the whole Bill is designed to "catch" the small "minority of cases" that make such schemes necessary in the first place? Or are they saying that actually, the majority of the population are scheming little toe-rags?
Liberty is dead! Long live liberty!
Good 2 page analysis at the Register with some valid points:
What's certain is that the government is now clearly in the grey zone - that limbo legal land where people are neither guilty nor innocent. As has been seen in the US, and in dictatorial regimes around the world, this is a zone occupied by doubt. When one person's innocence is another's guilt, the ruling comes down to who's making the rules, and what they're afraid of.
- What is the difference between "restriction" and "deprivation" of liberty? Is "physical" liberty (i.e. movement) so different from "mental" liberty (e.g. freedom of speech and freedom of religion)? Freedom of assembly may lie somewhere in the middle. Perhaps Clarke is concentrating on justifying the physical side, and simply clamping down on the mental side.
- New laws for liberty restriction covers all the people that the government merely suspects - at the moment, there's nothing that can be done without evidence (funny, that...). The old statistics of 700 arrested, 17 convicted comes back here, and the issue at stake is whether or not these 683 people, suspected of crime, should be free or "restricted", and on what evidence. As paranoia increases, this number is bound to increase exponentially, and there's no reason why the proportion of convictions will change.
What's certain is that the government is now clearly in the grey zone - that limbo legal land where people are neither guilty nor innocent. As has been seen in the US, and in dictatorial regimes around the world, this is a zone occupied by doubt. When one person's innocence is another's guilt, the ruling comes down to who's making the rules, and what they're afraid of.
Monday, February 28, 2005
Run away!
Blimey, it's gone all busy. Clarke is in retreat over the proposed superman powers he oh-so wants, even though the bid for judges rather than BatClarke lost, 253 votes to 267. He even admits... "I have come to the view that there is great merit in seeking as wide a consensus as is possible across Parliament." Can't think that's something old Blunky would have done... Good news, I suspect.
Meanwhile, it may be interesting to see in a few weeks what sentence Saajid Badat gets for not being a terrorist. Interesting, because the law is now firmly on the side of those wishing to convict people merely for planning attacks - if they change their mind, they're still guilty and liable to be locke dup for.. well, how long indeed? Hmm, IANAL. Are there similar precedents for, say, planning to commit murder, but not going through with it?
And is it just me, or are a fair proportion of (potential) terrorists intelligent and polite young men?
Meanwhile, it may be interesting to see in a few weeks what sentence Saajid Badat gets for not being a terrorist. Interesting, because the law is now firmly on the side of those wishing to convict people merely for planning attacks - if they change their mind, they're still guilty and liable to be locke dup for.. well, how long indeed? Hmm, IANAL. Are there similar precedents for, say, planning to commit murder, but not going through with it?
And is it just me, or are a fair proportion of (potential) terrorists intelligent and polite young men?
Suicide is annoying
Anti-Social Behaviour Orders! The cure for all ills!
In a fantastic victory for utilitarianist ASBOs, the Guardian reports that a suicidal woman has been issued with an ASBO to stop her from "going into rivers, canals or any open water in England and Wales", going onto train lines or hanging around on bridges. If she does any of these, she'll go to jail.
Phew, we're all safe now. Now I just need one to shut the baby next door up...
In a fantastic victory for utilitarianist ASBOs, the Guardian reports that a suicidal woman has been issued with an ASBO to stop her from "going into rivers, canals or any open water in England and Wales", going onto train lines or hanging around on bridges. If she does any of these, she'll go to jail.
Phew, we're all safe now. Now I just need one to shut the baby next door up...
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
The Emperor's new documents
Oops, missed this before...
[Clarke] "published 'briefing papers' about the international terrorist threat and the government's response.
Ex-government emergency planning chief Mike Grannatt said the papers combined information already on MI5's website with public threats from terrorist groups."
Does anyone know where you can get hold of these papers at all? Can't see any links from the Home Office site, BBC News or anywhere...
[Clarke] "published 'briefing papers' about the international terrorist threat and the government's response.
Ex-government emergency planning chief Mike Grannatt said the papers combined information already on MI5's website with public threats from terrorist groups."
Does anyone know where you can get hold of these papers at all? Can't see any links from the Home Office site, BBC News or anywhere...
The hypocrisy saga continues...
Unleashing his superman-like powers, Charles Clarke said: "Some believe that the absence in this country of a terrorist outrage like 9/11 or Madrid means that the terrorist threat has somehow passed us by or failed to materialise.
"That view is short-sighted, complacent, ignorant of the facts and potentially cavalier of the safety of this country."
And some believe that to chase terrorists without due discussion as to why they would want to target us is equally shortsighted. Some believe that merely casting people that disagree with our culture as "evil" is, perhaps, not such a good idea. To support the "destruction" of "terror" by wading into places and saying you know how to run a place better than the people that live there is questionable.
Perhaps this isn't Clarke's job. Maybe he doesn't care what happens in other countries - only what happens in this one, which may be fair. But I see a government that seems all too ready to lock its own people up to save face, rather than to consider the effect they're having on the world. I repeat myself - laws based on the fear of politicians are backwards laws that betray our backwards way of thinking.
"That view is short-sighted, complacent, ignorant of the facts and potentially cavalier of the safety of this country."
And some believe that to chase terrorists without due discussion as to why they would want to target us is equally shortsighted. Some believe that merely casting people that disagree with our culture as "evil" is, perhaps, not such a good idea. To support the "destruction" of "terror" by wading into places and saying you know how to run a place better than the people that live there is questionable.
Perhaps this isn't Clarke's job. Maybe he doesn't care what happens in other countries - only what happens in this one, which may be fair. But I see a government that seems all too ready to lock its own people up to save face, rather than to consider the effect they're having on the world. I repeat myself - laws based on the fear of politicians are backwards laws that betray our backwards way of thinking.
Holy future paranoia, home office man!
Well well, we are in a bit of a tizzy, aren't we? There are evildoers afoot, and if we don't come up with a way of sorting them all out by the 14th of March, *BOOM!* - we'll all be blown sky high! What is to be done?
Fortunately, Charles Clarke knows there's only one way to deal with terrorists, and that's by locking them up himself. Everyone will be able to wake up safe and happy on March 15th knowing that red-pants-ridden Charlie will be flying through the skies, swooping down to pick up anyone and everyone that looks, well, downright suspicious, eh? It's no wonder, with his superhuman powers of judgement and righteousnes, that he's so eager to get on with the job! Just such a shame that everyone else is jealous and wants to see a boring old judge do the job - judges can't even fly, for goodness' sake!
So the clock is ticking. Less than 3 weeks to draw up the blueprints for the future - but note, the next 20 days will properly reveal who's really in control of the country. Will Clarkey listen to democracy? Will the common people realise what the inter-party tiff really represents? Will Michael Howard be able to think up something before Charles does? Tune in next month - same terror-time, same terror-blogchannel*!
* Actually, this may change soon. Clarke is definitely living up to his predecessor's insultory nickname, and the ability to appear relevant and up-to-date is somewhat hindered by referring to someone that everyone's now forgotten ever existed. Aww, poor Blunky. He did so well.
Fortunately, Charles Clarke knows there's only one way to deal with terrorists, and that's by locking them up himself. Everyone will be able to wake up safe and happy on March 15th knowing that red-pants-ridden Charlie will be flying through the skies, swooping down to pick up anyone and everyone that looks, well, downright suspicious, eh? It's no wonder, with his superhuman powers of judgement and righteousnes, that he's so eager to get on with the job! Just such a shame that everyone else is jealous and wants to see a boring old judge do the job - judges can't even fly, for goodness' sake!
So the clock is ticking. Less than 3 weeks to draw up the blueprints for the future - but note, the next 20 days will properly reveal who's really in control of the country. Will Clarkey listen to democracy? Will the common people realise what the inter-party tiff really represents? Will Michael Howard be able to think up something before Charles does? Tune in next month - same terror-time, same terror-blogchannel*!
* Actually, this may change soon. Clarke is definitely living up to his predecessor's insultory nickname, and the ability to appear relevant and up-to-date is somewhat hindered by referring to someone that everyone's now forgotten ever existed. Aww, poor Blunky. He did so well.
Friday, February 04, 2005
Human Rights? What they?
Not sure if this came out a week ago, but I only just picked it up on publictechnology.net...
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has released its report on the Identity Cards Bill [summary], raising numerous (read "shedloads of") concerns around the privacy implications of the Register Scheme. PublicTechnology.net further summarises, but the main points are:
Much of it seems to be regarding the potential for further expansion, an observation I completely agree with. There are very few safeguards to ensure that the government itself handles data with any responsibility at all, and there doesn't seem to be any eagerness to address this issue of accountability.
The Committee's questions to Charles Clarke pulls few punches, offering insight and rationale that the government has sorely been lacking so far in its arguments. For instance:
"Requiring only those who hold driving licences or passports, and who apply to hold or renew them, to enter their details on the Register appears unlikely to provide an effective means of addressing any of the aims of the Bill." (Question 2)
It's going to be an interesting reply (the Committee request one by Monday 7th February) from the Home Office, one which I look forward to reading.
This is also really good material, from an extremely reputable source, to forward onto Ministers (hint, hint). What would be even better is an easy-to-read version (with relevant pointers to the original source) that gets the findings across really quickly. I wonder if a wiki or something could be used/useful for this...
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has released its report on the Identity Cards Bill [summary], raising numerous (read "shedloads of") concerns around the privacy implications of the Register Scheme. PublicTechnology.net further summarises, but the main points are:
- The extent of personal info being held is questionable, both in terms of scope and effectiveness
- Allowing information to be held in the database without the individual's knowledge/consent is questionable
- A system of "designated documents" would make the scheme "effectively compulsory" for certain (very large) groups
- Information "shared" from both public and private organisations to confirm the register's information may be too much
- "extensive disclosure of personal information on the Register to public bodies for a wide range of purposes"
Much of it seems to be regarding the potential for further expansion, an observation I completely agree with. There are very few safeguards to ensure that the government itself handles data with any responsibility at all, and there doesn't seem to be any eagerness to address this issue of accountability.
The Committee's questions to Charles Clarke pulls few punches, offering insight and rationale that the government has sorely been lacking so far in its arguments. For instance:
"Requiring only those who hold driving licences or passports, and who apply to hold or renew them, to enter their details on the Register appears unlikely to provide an effective means of addressing any of the aims of the Bill." (Question 2)
It's going to be an interesting reply (the Committee request one by Monday 7th February) from the Home Office, one which I look forward to reading.
This is also really good material, from an extremely reputable source, to forward onto Ministers (hint, hint). What would be even better is an easy-to-read version (with relevant pointers to the original source) that gets the findings across really quickly. I wonder if a wiki or something could be used/useful for this...
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
More terror backlash, and Freedom at the expense of the public
ePolitix reports that Labour could be weakening on terror laws. "The one thing I will not do as prime minister is engage in anything that puts the security of our country at risk," Blair told MPs. "That is absolutely paramount for me." Hmm, shame he didn't think of that before portraying himself as being constantly in bed with US policies then...
Also worth checkin out is spy.org.uk's FOIA request for OGC Gateway Reviews of the ID Cards scheme, as they've now been put off by 15 days - just enough to avoid giving out information until after the final debate of the bill. According to publictechnology.net, it's 1 of only 2 (out of over 4,000) requests to have the deadline extended. Coincidence? Government afraid? Make your own mind up.
Also worth checkin out is spy.org.uk's FOIA request for OGC Gateway Reviews of the ID Cards scheme, as they've now been put off by 15 days - just enough to avoid giving out information until after the final debate of the bill. According to publictechnology.net, it's 1 of only 2 (out of over 4,000) requests to have the deadline extended. Coincidence? Government afraid? Make your own mind up.
The backlash begins
The Lib Dems are opposing house arrests says the headline, although let's face it - the real issue here is Use of Evidence, as in there isn't any. Alas, I think this is going to be another of those issues that the public really don't care about, and so the government will get their way if no-one fights it.
Now, after reading Sarah Arnott's piece on ID Cards, I must admit to changing tactic slightly.
Up til now, the civil liberties aspect has always taken slightly more precedence over government incompetence. I would rather a stupid state than an all-powerful state. And fortunately, perhaps, my wish is true. It is, I think, plausible to assume foremost that the government is scared rather than incompetent - scared into making some dumb, paranoid moves that may then have the possible side-effect of sweeping aside civilities.
Any organisation that is led on by both fear (in the Home Office's case) and outright faith (in the Prime Minister's case) is on a very wrong footing, IMHO. Whitehall's lack of courage to think sensibly for a moment, coupled with a political structure in which admitting to making mistakes is considered heresy, has left us with a fussy-mother state rather than a nanny one.
On the up side, it may be easier to combat fear than malevolence...
On a different note, I'm still thinking of changing the blog's name (and putting a redirect in). Any suggestions? :)
Now, after reading Sarah Arnott's piece on ID Cards, I must admit to changing tactic slightly.
Up til now, the civil liberties aspect has always taken slightly more precedence over government incompetence. I would rather a stupid state than an all-powerful state. And fortunately, perhaps, my wish is true. It is, I think, plausible to assume foremost that the government is scared rather than incompetent - scared into making some dumb, paranoid moves that may then have the possible side-effect of sweeping aside civilities.
Any organisation that is led on by both fear (in the Home Office's case) and outright faith (in the Prime Minister's case) is on a very wrong footing, IMHO. Whitehall's lack of courage to think sensibly for a moment, coupled with a political structure in which admitting to making mistakes is considered heresy, has left us with a fussy-mother state rather than a nanny one.
On the up side, it may be easier to combat fear than malevolence...
On a different note, I'm still thinking of changing the blog's name (and putting a redirect in). Any suggestions? :)
Thursday, January 27, 2005
The Police are Ready
Talkin of reminders, here's one to highlight the extent to which the police stand to benefit from proposed identification schemes. Cards are still on the starting stretch, but the networks exist already to implement much of what people fear about an ID system:
Police to use roadside fingerprint technology if SOCA Bill is passed
"Suspects without sufficient identification will have to place their finger on the electronic device, which will link to records kept on the National Automated Fingerprint Identification System."
Exercise for the reader: Define "suspect".
Police to use roadside fingerprint technology if SOCA Bill is passed
"Suspects without sufficient identification will have to place their finger on the electronic device, which will link to records kept on the National Automated Fingerprint Identification System."
Exercise for the reader: Define "suspect".
"Interesting TImes"
It seems to be another of those weeks of great change, and any change is never bad change. At least the issues at stake are presently being thrust through the discussion millstone, and it seems to me to be better to have people thinking about it one way or the other than not thinking at all.
The Guardian leads with the Guantanamo Britons being sent home while the Beeb highlights Blair's defence of the new house arrest plans, saying:
"'[Terrorists] will cause death and destruction on an unlimited scale and they will and are trying to organise such terrorist activity in our own country. I just hope people get this in perspective.'"
Alas for him, I've already gained a much larger perspective - one greater than thinking that merely slamming anyone who could pose a possible threat in jail will work, ever. I feel it's perhaps time to remind myself, and anyone else that may have forgotten, that laws based on fear are laws that seek to punish, exclude and squash. While we continue to shout about avoiding the very real threats posed to us, we are simultaneously ignoring the very real causes and equally plausible solutions to them.
I have yet to work out what these new proposed anti-terrorist laws truly mean, but until our leaders begin to accept the true causes of terror (hint: "hatred of our freedom" no longer washes), I doubt that their "answers"will have any impact other than a draconian jailstate in which, yes, everyone will be safe, but also no - no global accountancy, no governmental transparency. We'll be safe asleep in our beds while the World burns outside.
The hypocrisy continues.
The Guardian leads with the Guantanamo Britons being sent home while the Beeb highlights Blair's defence of the new house arrest plans, saying:
"'[Terrorists] will cause death and destruction on an unlimited scale and they will and are trying to organise such terrorist activity in our own country. I just hope people get this in perspective.'"
Alas for him, I've already gained a much larger perspective - one greater than thinking that merely slamming anyone who could pose a possible threat in jail will work, ever. I feel it's perhaps time to remind myself, and anyone else that may have forgotten, that laws based on fear are laws that seek to punish, exclude and squash. While we continue to shout about avoiding the very real threats posed to us, we are simultaneously ignoring the very real causes and equally plausible solutions to them.
I have yet to work out what these new proposed anti-terrorist laws truly mean, but until our leaders begin to accept the true causes of terror (hint: "hatred of our freedom" no longer washes), I doubt that their "answers"will have any impact other than a draconian jailstate in which, yes, everyone will be safe, but also no - no global accountancy, no governmental transparency. We'll be safe asleep in our beds while the World burns outside.
The hypocrisy continues.
Sunday, January 23, 2005
The Home Office replies
Things are quiet of late still, mainly due to heavy workload and some other activities, but I have received a response from MP Des Browne, following my initial letter to my MP back in December.
I've only just transcribed it into electronic format (so apologies for any typos), but rest assured there are plenty of points to respond to in it, along with some interesting (to me) tidbits such as the definition of "serious crime" ("...is conducted by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose").
As usual, the Home Office tends to ignore any sensible point about the proposals, opting instead to submit back to me their own stock set of arguments as explained patiently to the media every time the issue arises. By the looks of it, the letter isn't a standard form one (which is heartening - I like having attention paid to me ;), but I wouldn't be surprised if there was some copying and pasting from a "standard response" document somewhere. The usual vaguaries are also abundant, for instance:
"Law enforcement agencies ... will be able to seek disclosure of information from the Register for specified purposes e.g. for the prevention or investigation of crime."
So when something is "specified", it's nice and broad then.
I will try and find some time to concoct a decent reply asap. It's nice to know that maybe maybe I have their ear for a change, too.
I've only just transcribed it into electronic format (so apologies for any typos), but rest assured there are plenty of points to respond to in it, along with some interesting (to me) tidbits such as the definition of "serious crime" ("...is conducted by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose").
As usual, the Home Office tends to ignore any sensible point about the proposals, opting instead to submit back to me their own stock set of arguments as explained patiently to the media every time the issue arises. By the looks of it, the letter isn't a standard form one (which is heartening - I like having attention paid to me ;), but I wouldn't be surprised if there was some copying and pasting from a "standard response" document somewhere. The usual vaguaries are also abundant, for instance:
"Law enforcement agencies ... will be able to seek disclosure of information from the Register for specified purposes e.g. for the prevention or investigation of crime."
So when something is "specified", it's nice and broad then.
I will try and find some time to concoct a decent reply asap. It's nice to know that maybe maybe I have their ear for a change, too.
Monday, January 17, 2005
Another one bites the dust
Pretty quiet recently, as 2005 kicks in without the media-happy face of Mr Blunkett to wake me up in the morning. Sigh. Don't be fooled though, nothing much is changing, and another Lawyer for terror detainees quits.
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Will *anyone* back ID cards?
Quick catch-up from last year - amongst the increasingly cautious over ID Cards are the
SNP and the
Citizens Advice Bureau. Both warn against trusting the government about their promises of what the scheme can deliver. I don't know - all this worry, yet still the bill went through all so easily... Politicians, eh?
The BBC are also having a field day as truckloads of documents get revealed under Freedom of Information. Apparently Labour dismissed ID cards in 1974, it turns out. Why? Despite a threat of terrorism from the IRA, they were deemed to be "extremely expensive and largely ineffective", as well as entertaining "the danger of being driven to more and more extreme measures involving unwarranted infringement of personal liberty."
The more things change, the more they stay the same...
SNP and the
Citizens Advice Bureau. Both warn against trusting the government about their promises of what the scheme can deliver. I don't know - all this worry, yet still the bill went through all so easily... Politicians, eh?
The BBC are also having a field day as truckloads of documents get revealed under Freedom of Information. Apparently Labour dismissed ID cards in 1974, it turns out. Why? Despite a threat of terrorism from the IRA, they were deemed to be "extremely expensive and largely ineffective", as well as entertaining "the danger of being driven to more and more extreme measures involving unwarranted infringement of personal liberty."
The more things change, the more they stay the same...
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Blair names new security supremo
Welcome, all, to 2005. The year ahead promises to be an exciting, intriguing funfair-ride of great change.
Admittedly, this blog has been on a small hiatus over the last few festive weeks, but I trust that we're all back, relaxed and rested, and ready to stay vigilant and sceptical as we move forwards.
A small one to start off with... The head of the immigration service is to take over as "security and intelligence co-ordinator".
Oh, and don't forget that the Freedom of Information Act is now primed and ready.
Admittedly, this blog has been on a small hiatus over the last few festive weeks, but I trust that we're all back, relaxed and rested, and ready to stay vigilant and sceptical as we move forwards.
A small one to start off with... The head of the immigration service is to take over as "security and intelligence co-ordinator".
Oh, and don't forget that the Freedom of Information Act is now primed and ready.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)