Crapaganda.com

Thousands of people across the UK might have been stopped and searched illegally, figures released by the Home Office suggest.

Powers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act were used in “error” after the proper authorisations were not given.

In one example, for April 2004, the Met Police wrongly stopped 840 people.

Dozens of other examples from across the UK have been uncovered before rules were tightened in 2008.

Police Minister Nick Herbert said administrative errors were to blame and he has ordered an internal review of procedures.

The Metropolitan Police is also urgently considering what steps can be taken to contact the individuals concerned.

Extremists

Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows police to stop and search someone without suspicion that an offence has occurred.

The controversial powers can be used only in specific areas on the orders of a police chief, with later approval by the home secretary.

Supporters say such powers can make it harder for extremists to carry out reconnaissance in public areas, such as near high-profile tourist attractions.

But critics, including the government’s reviewer of terror legislation, Lord Carlile, say they unfairly target some ethnic groups and increase community tensions.

The Met is responsible for the vast majority of section 44 operations, many of which take place in Westminster and at major transport hubs or “iconic” tourist sites such as Buckingham Palace.

The force only discovered the April 2004 blunder after a request was made under the Freedom of Information Act earlier this year.

Officials researching stop and search authorisations found a Home Office minister had not signed within 48 hours.

A Met spokesman said the mistake was not noticed in 2004 due to an “oversight” and procedures have been reviewed.

Asked whether the force now faced a flood of legal actions, he said: “It is a matter for individuals to seek legal advice in relation to this issue.”

The spokesman also denied the force had misled the public, saying: “The Met first became aware of the issue in April 2010 during the process of compiling data in answer to a Freedom of Information request.

“All public statements issued before that date were made in good faith and there was no intention to mislead the public.”

The Met case sparked a trawl for errors across the UK.

Officials discovered 33 occasions when forces asked for a 29-day search window, even though the legislation only allows a maximum of 28 days. In two cases, forces asked for 30 days.

‘Public confidence’

The Home Office has written to each of the 14 police forces concerned to alert them to the errors.

It said the forces were now in the process of assessing how many individuals were illegally stopped and searched and would “do their best to contact those involved”.

Security Minister Baroness Neville-Jones said: “I am very concerned by these historical administrative errors. To maintain public confidence in our counter-terrorism powers, it is absolutely crucial all those responsible for exercising them do so properly.

“I take these matters extremely seriously and have instructed the department to conduct an urgent review of current procedures to ensure that errors can be prevented in future.

“The government is already committed to undertaking a review of counter-terrorism legislation which will include the use of stop and search powers in section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. We shall make our findings known as soon as possible.”

Officials at the Home Office, National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) and Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) are examining the mistakes.

The 40 flawed operations uncovered by officials include three which have previously been identified as being based on flawed paperwork.

The forces involved are: Metropolitan Police, North Yorkshire, Hampshire, Bedfordshire, Essex, Greater Manchester, Fife, South Wales and Thames Valley.

Invalid operations linked to Sussex Police and South Wales Police have been highlighted to Parliament previously.

Acpo lead officer on stop and search, Chief Constable Craig Mackey, said: “Stop and search can work well when it is carried out with the support and understanding of the community. Used correctly, it can create a hostile environment for terrorists to operate in and help protect the public.”

In January this year, the powers were ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights. The new coalition government has said it is reviewing their use, as part of a wider overhaul of anti-terror legislation.

Source: BBC

Identity cards will be scrapped under plans announced by the new Conservative and Lib Dem coalition government, new Home Secretary Theresa May has said.

Their abolition is among measures the parties have agreed to reverse what they say was “the substantial erosion” of civil liberties in recent years.

Other proposals include reforms to the DNA database, tighter regulation of CCTV and a review of libel laws.

Labour claims ID cards help tackle benefit fraud and identity theft.

The Tories and Lib Dems have both opposed ID cards from the outset, arguing they are expensive, intrusive and have done little to tackle the most serious threats to society such as terrorism and organised crime.

In a statement, the Home Office said it would announce “in due course” how the process of rescinding ID cards and the accompanying National Identity Register would move forward.

Until Parliament passes legislation banning them, ID cards remain valid and people can still apply for them. Migrant workers from outside the EU and thousands if British citizens in the North-West of England, where the scheme was being piloted, have already been issued with cards.

Home Office officials said they would advise anyone thinking of applying to wait for further announcements.

Compulsory ID cards were introduced for foreign nationals in 2008. However, attempts to require certain workers in sensitive roles, such as airport workers, to have them ran into trouble.

‘Freedom bill’

UK nationals have been able to apply for an ID card, on a voluntary basis, since last autumn with the application process being rolled out across the country.

The new government is also proposing to scrap all future biometric passports and the Contact Point Database as part of a new so-called “Freedom or Great Repeal Bill”.

It wants to “roll back” powers it says were taken by the state under Labour and has pledged to defend trial by jury, restore rights to non-violent protest, end the storage of internet and email records without good reason, introduce safeguards against the “misuse” of anti-terrorism legislation.

The new government also wants extra safeguards over the retention of people’s DNA by the police.

During the election campaign, the Lib Dems argued the DNA of innocent people should be removed from the national database and not be stored there in future while the Conservatives called for new safeguards to protect privacy.

Labour have strongly argued that the DNA database is an invaluable crime-fighting tool.

‘Innocent people’

Home Secretary Theresa May said: “We will be scrapping ID cards but also introducing an annual cap on the number of migrants coming into the UK from outside the European union.”

She said there was a “process to be gone through” to decide the annual limit. The coalition government was committed to introducing elected police commissioners and cutting police paperwork to “give the police more time on the streets,” she added.

On the DNA database, she said: “We are absolutely clear we need to make some changes in relation to the DNA database. For example one of the first things we will do is to ensure that all the people who have actually been convicted of a crime and are not present on it are actually on the DNA database.

“The last government did not do that. It focused on retaining the DNA data of people who were innocent. Let’s actually make sure that those who have been found guilty are actually on that database.”

There is no mention in the parties’ policy document of Conservative plans – included in their manifesto – for a British Bill of Rights to supersede the Human Rights Act.

The Lib Dems support a Bill of Rights but have said overriding the Human Rights Act would be “shameful”.

Source: BBC

Police said Wednesday they have warned an airport worker who reportedly made a crude remark about a colleague’s breasts as a newly-installed security scanner took a full body X-ray of her.

Jo Margetson, 29, walked into an X-ray machine at London’s Heathrow Airport by mistake before the incident allegedly took place — and told The Sun newspaper she is now “totally traumatised”.

The reported incident, the first such complaint since the machines were introduced earlier this year, has highlighted privacy concerns about the use of full body scanners at British airports.

Heathrow and Manchester airports has been using them since an alleged bid to blow up a US-bound jet on Christmas Day was foiled, while the US and The Netherlands are among other countries where they are being installed.

When asked about the story, a spokesman for London’s Metropolitan Police said: “Police received an allegation regarding an incident that happened at Heathrow Terminal 5 on March 10.

“A first instance harassment warning has been issued to a 25-year-old male.”

Airports operator BAA, which runs Heathrow, added that it was investigating the allegations.

“If these claims are found to be substantiated, we will take appropriate action,” a spokesman added.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has warned the government that the scanners could run counter to the right to privacy enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.

“When privacy-invading machines like these are installed at our airports, abuses like this are inevitable,” said Alex Deane of campaign group Big Brother Watch.

Source: Rawstory.com

Secret operation ‘reporting only to London’ deprived prisoners of sleep, documents show

Fresh evidence has emerged that British military intelligence ran a secret operation in Iraq which authorised degrading and unlawful treatment of prisoners. Documents reveal that prisoners were kept hooded for long periods in intense heat and deprived of sleep by defence intelligence officers. They also reveal that officers running the operation claimed to be answerable only “directly to London”.

The revelations will further embarrass the British government, which last month was forced to release documents showing it knew that UK resident and terror suspect Binyam Mohamed had been tortured in Pakistan.

The latest documents emerged during the inquiry into Baha Mousa, an Iraqi hotel worker beaten to death while in the custody of British troops in September 2003. The inquiry is looking into how interrogation techniques banned by the Government in 1972 and considered torture and degrading treatment were used again in Iraq.

Lawyers believe the new evidence supports suspicions that an intelligence unit – the Joint Forward Interrogation Team (JFIT) which operated in Iraq – used illegal “coercive techniques” and was not answerable to military commanders in Iraq, despite official denials it operated independently.

In a statement to the inquiry, Colonel Christopher Vernon said he raised concerns after seeing 30 to 40 prisoners in a kneeling position with sacks over their heads. He said those in charge said they were from the Defence and Intelligence Security Centre, based at Chicksands, Bedfordshire, the British Army’s intelligence HQ.

He was informed that “they were an independent unit and reported directly to their chain of command in London”. Hooding was “accepted practice” and would continue, he was told. “They reiterated the point they were an independent unit and did not come under the command of the GOC1 (UK) Armed Div (the Iraq command),” he said. Asked by the inquiry last week whether there was “some sort of feeling generally in the Army the intelligence people were slightly on their own and running their own show”, Col Vernon replied: “I think you could say that.”

In a second statement, Colonel David Frend, a British Army legal adviser in Iraq, said he was told by a senior military intelligence officer in London that “there was a legitimate reason for it [hooding], they had always done it and they would like to continue to do it.” Col Frend said: “My recollection is that he said that they – ie those at JFIT – had been trained to hood. My understanding from the conversation was simply the use of hessian sandbags as hoods were something that had been taught to members of the JFIT at some point prior to deployment [to Iraq] and that it was not a unilateral act by them.”

In a further email disclosed by the inquiry this week, Major Gavin Davies, a member of the Army’s legal team, wrote in March 2003: “I have just spoken to S002 [code for an army intelligence officer in Iraq] about the subject of placing [prisoners] in hoods in the UK facility." He goes on to say that he was told that hooding is only until "high value" prisoners can be interviewed, and the length of hooding can last from an hour to 24 hours. The only other restriction, he wrote, "is that they may not sleep". Sleep deprivation is considered torture.

Chicksands has always denied that it trained soldiers to use hoods, claiming that there may have been some confusion with its "conduct after capture" training programme.

However, a further email from a military legal officer based at Permanent Joint Headquarters in Northwood, also published last week, stated: "I have heard that Chicksands have denied teaching hooding and suggested that there may be confusion in the minds of those who have completed the conduct after capture course during which students are hooded. I find this implausible. The people I have spoken to are not stupid. It seems to me more likely that hooding is taught but for actions immediately on capture or for prisoner handling."

In November, the human rights lawyer Phil Shiner, who represents Baha Mousa's family and forced the public inquiry, lodged a further 14 cases of abuse, naming JFIT. This is the first time that evidence to support the claims from the British military has emerged. There are now 47 claims of abuse lodged against the Government.

Yesterday Mr Shiner said: "It's been established that JFIT were a separate compound and their personnel were not accountable to a military chain of command. There is a mass of evidence from this and other cases which shows JFIT used coercive interrogation techniques – forbidden under law – as standard operating procedure. We need an independent inquiry to examine who was responsible."

A MoD spokesman declined to comment while the inquiry was ongoing.

Source: Independent.co.uk

In recent years Britain has become the Willy Wonka of social control, churning out increasingly creepy, bizarre, and fantastic methods for policing the populace. But our weaponization of classical music—where Mozart, Beethoven, and other greats have been turned into tools of state repression—marks a new low.

We’re already the kings of CCTV. An estimated 20 per cent of the world’s CCTV cameras are in the UK, a remarkable achievement for an island that occupies only 0.2 per cent of the world’s inhabitable landmass.

A few years ago some local authorities introduced the Mosquito, a gadget that emits a noise that sounds like a faint buzz to people over the age of 20 but which is so high-pitched, so piercing, and so unbearable to the delicate ear drums of anyone under 20 that they cannot remain in earshot. It’s designed to drive away unruly youth from public spaces, yet is so brutally indiscriminate that it also drives away good kids, terrifies toddlers, and wakes sleeping babes.

Police in the West of England recently started using super-bright halogen lights to temporarily blindmisbehaving youngsters. From helicopters, the cops beam the spotlights at youths drinking or loitering in parks, in the hope that they will become so bamboozled that (when they recover their eyesight) they will stagger home.

And recently police in Liverpool boasted about making Britain’s first-ever arrest by unmanned flying drone. Inspired, it seems, by Britain and America’s robot planes in Afghanistan, the Liverpool cops used a remote-control helicopter fitted with CCTV (of course) to catch a car thief.

Britain might not make steel anymore, or cars, or pop music worth listening to, but, boy, are we world-beaters when it comes to tyranny. And now classical music, which was once taught to young people as a way of elevating their minds and tingling their souls, is being mined for its potential as a deterrent against bad behavior.

In January it was revealed that West Park School, in Derby in the midlands of England, was “subjecting” (its words) badly behaved children to Mozart and others. In “special detentions,” the children are forced to endure two hours of classical music both as a relaxant (the headmaster claims it calms them down) and as a deterrent against future bad behavior (apparently the number of disruptive pupils has fallen by 60 per cent since the detentions were introduced.)

Read more »

All 6000 pages are available at: http://ufos.nationalarchives.gov.uk/

The director-general of MI5, Jonathan Evans, has issued a passionate defence of the Security Service against the “conspiracy theory” that it covered up its involvement in torture.

Mr Evans accusations made by Lord Neuberger, the country’s second most senior judge, that there was a “culture of suppression” at MI5 were “the precise opposite of the truth”.

As Mr Evans defended the security services against claims of torture, ministers also voiced their support in an open letter to newspapers.

In their open letter David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, and Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, said it was “disgraceful” to suggest that the UK aided torture, or was turning a blind eye to it.

Writing in The Daily Telegraph, Mr Evans warns that the row over alleged human rights abuses would be used by “our enemies” as “propaganda to undermine our will and ability to confront them”.

His unprecedented response to criticism in print indicates the anger within MI5 at what is rapidly becoming its biggest crisis of recent years.

The row escalated on Wednesday when the Court of Appeal ordered the disclosure of seven paragraphs of evidence which showed that MI5 knew that Binyam Mohamed, a former Guantánamo Bay detainee, was being mistreated by the CIA.

Mr Miliband had tried to prevent the publication of the material.

The most damning criticism of MI5 was contained in an unpublished draft version of the court’s judgment, details of which were leaked to the media, in which Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls, claimed that the Security Service failed to respect human rights or denounce torture, and had lied to Parliament about what it knew.

More at: MI5 chief defends security services amid torture ‘cover-up’ claims (Telegraph UK)

From a tactical military standpoint, land mines have a certain set-it-and-forget-it appeal; you blanket an area in munitions and move on, secure in the fact that if the enemy tries to cross that terrain they’ll find an automated resistance waiting for them. But we all know that land mines are also one of modern warfare’s most indiscriminate and devastating developments, with the capacity to kill and maim innocent people even decades after hostilities have ceased. To remedy this problem, arms maker Metal Storm has developed a virtual minefield that delivers the tactical advantage of land mines without blanketing areas with dangerous ordnance that could be left behind.

From a tactical perspective, the virtual minefield is even better than the real deal because it can be turned on and off to allow friendly troop movement across a “minefield.” The computer can even deactivate a specific path through an area to allow troops to move through, reactivating it when friendlies are clear.

Smart Virtual Minefield Offers Tactical Coverage Without the Ugly Unexploded Ordnance (Popular Science)

Metal Storm’s virtual minefield gets a patent (Gizmag)

A secret Bush/Blair memo seems to have surfaced.  The memo purports to show that a deal was made in which Great Britain would support the United States in an all-out war on Iraq.  The real kicker is that the memo is dated a year before the start of the war in Iraq in 2003.

Ex-Prime Minister Blair has insisted, throughout the Iraq Inquiry, that there were no covert agreements made regarding the invasion of Iraq.

Memo ‘shows Blair Iraq war deal with Bush’ (BBC)