Answering to No-one

Those of you old enough to remember the late 70s will recall any civil disturbance in London was dealt with by the notorious SPG. The Special Patrol Group was synonymous with thuggery and oppressive violence until the Met disbanded it in 1986. They replaced it with the altogether more reasonably sounding TSG (Territorial Support Group) which still functions today. It would seem discipline in the TSG has deterioted steeply in recent years and now makes the old PSG look about as threatening as a group of Sea Scouts. In the last four years over 5,000 complaints have been lodged about TSG and yet only a pitiful nine have been upheld. That means 99.8% of complaints are dismissed.

It would seem not only are the TSG behaving like uniformed boot-boys but they are also acting effectively with impunity. Their recent behaviour during G20 demonstrations (pictured above) exposed their unneccessary brutal methods. But don't expect any officer to even face suspension. The TSG seemingly act as one to inhibit the work of the Independent Police Complaints Commission but the IPPC finds it almost impossible to discipline let alone prosecute any rogue copper. And ironically the IPPC is even less effective than the utterly discredited Police Complaints Authority which it replaced.

The Association of Chief Police Officers have an equally fundamental but more cerebral intolerance of any protest and have established a National Public Order Intelligence Unit and under it a National Domestic Extremist Team. This unit has set up databases of people, mostly without any conviction, in the expectation they may yet break the law through their, usually peaceful, protests. The ACPO lead, Assistant Chief Constable Anton Setchell, made a glib attempt to justify this massively disproportionate response. "Just because you have no criminal record does not mean you are not of interest to the police, " adding smugly, "everyone who has got a criminal record did not have one once." Given that Stalinist logic, we should almost feel nostalgic for the days when the Plod would say, "anyone who is innocent has nothing to worry about."

As police powers have been extended and accountability almost eradicated, even regional, rural forces feel they can act without restraint. Last month, officers from Avon and Somerset police arrived at a private house to arrest Robert Symonds, 20, for breaching bail conditions for a minor public order offence. Thirty or more officers were present to carry out this arrest during a birthday Bar-b-q - even though there were several children present, the police felt justified to use CS spray on several guests. Abbie Adams, 10, was hospitalised by the effects. When Robert Symonds' case came to court, all charges were dropped for lack of evidence.

I cannot say exactly why the police wished to persecute this family but their outrageous use of force and indiscriminate use of CS spray should not go unpunished. But we know - the police know - it certainly will.

Of The Highest Calibre

Sgt. Kimberly Munley (left) is being lauded as a true American hero and her plaudits are fully deserved. Last Friday, she shot and severely injured mass-killer, Major Nidal Malik Hasan at Ford Hood, Texas and so halted his despicable killing spree.

Hasan had already shot about 45 people, 13 fatally, when he stopped to re-load. Traffic cop, Sgt Munley, although badly injured herself, hit Hasan with four shots and no doubt prevented several further murders.

The media focus has been on Hasan's obviously wavering mental stability prior to the shootings, his Muslim faith and his imminent posting to Afghanistan. It was difficult to find any information about the weapon he used and the ease with which he purchased it. It seems Hasan bought the FN Five Seven 'Cop-Killer' pistol over the counter at a local store.

Solo killers like Hasan are invariable gun enthusiasts, who bought and held their weapons legally. They invariably use pistols. They kill themselves. This pattern was followed in Dunblane as well as other massacres in Germany, Switzerland, France, Italy and Finland (twice).

In 1996-7, the British Government (first Tory, then Labour) took the nation's entire stock of pistols out of private hands and destroyed them. It cost about £90m but was one of the best actions any Government took and one which we, as a country, have struggled to locate our pride in.

Of course, gun crime has risen in the last twelve years but massacres stand at zero and will remain so. It is still technically possible for a very determined individual to plot a similar outrage against vulnerable targets in Britain today. But the amount of time needed to accumulate the necessary ammo would be very considerable, at least long enough for seething anger to dissipate somewhat.

It is the mere fact that lethal weaponry is available which fuels the anger of the disturbed individual and makes them believe ultimate retribution is in their grasp. Take away the guns and the cycle is broken.

There are an estimated 300 million guns in the States so even if it were politically impossible (which it isn't) there would be huge practical difficulties in taking out several classes of weapon let alone all of them. At least in Britain we did the right thing when we had the chance.

Class Prejudice

Prof. David Nutt (left) is Britain's most eminent psychopharmacologist, which means he knows better than anyone how drugs affect the brain.

As Chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, it is also his role to convey to the Government his objective assessments of drugs' relative harms. Recently, Labour has decided to reject the ACMD's advice because, they argue, only Governments take a "necessary wider view."

I gave official evidence for one of the ACMD's reviews - the second one I think, there's been so many. It was painstakingly thorough, tediously so. They took evidence from from every conceivable source of knowledge on the subject, epidimiologists, forensic scientists, police, barristers, mental health charities, even the users themselves.

But the last two Home Secretaries evidentally thinks they have a more acute level of understanding of drugs, certainly more than these mere world-renown experts. For one thing, the politicians claim to be responding to public opinion, not something they usually adhere to on matters such as the economy, criminal justice or defence.

The last ACMD study included, for the first time, figures for people's perceptions on classes and penalties for drugs. Their attitudes were harsh when asked general questions - 32% thought cannabis should be made class A alongside heroin. But when asked about their own children, most thought cannabis possession should not attract a criminal record. Confusion clearly reigns among the people so perhaps they are not the most reliable sources of advice.

Our Gordon sees things more simply, clinically so. The PM told the Evening Standard he would, in his final months, leave a legacy of an even, "tougher policy on drugs...which is what people want".

If you watch Gordon now, particularly at PMQs, he has distilled his rethoric into the most common denominator of, what is right and what is wrong. He invariably gives long lists of where the Cons were "wrong" on economy, Europe etc. He can invert this when talking drugs, "it was right to reclassify cannabis. It is right to reject any attempts to reclassify ecstasy. It's right also to say that drugs can cause such damage, particularly when dealers are pushing drugs on young people." Talk about old school, he only forgot to say what a "scourge" they are.

Alan Johnson bravely e-mailed David Nutt the sack for challenging the Government on why they would not listen to their own advisers. Wor Alan argued there was a place for science and another for politics and it was not for Professors like David Nutt to "cross the line." Utter nonsense of course, if a scientist could not express what impact his views would have societally, then he really would be just a silly old boffin.

But, surely, it would be really foolish for a poltician to leap into the scientific arguments when he has zero expertise. Not so, Johnson. Nearly all drug experts say the causal link between cannabis and psychosis is weak but Johnson declared to the House on Monday, "the causal link is increasingly clear and will, I am sure, become well established in a very short time."

That is just baloney. The Tories would have laughed him out of the chamber if they weren't even bigger headbangers on drugs matters. Only the Lib-Dems made any sense whatever.

Drugs seems to be a subject like no other, where one simple assertion from either side is wilfully distorted beyond recognition. One columnist this week said the reason was drugs was an issue of science, health, education based on generational, class, cultural and racial differences. It was one of the only truism written all week which all sides might agree on.

____________________________________________________________
The Guardian printed an article of mine on Tuesday (link below). I was most gratified they put my words up against those of Ann Widdecombe, when you're views are diametrically opposed to her then you must be getting something right.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/02/cannabis-row-drugs-david-nutt

Toxic Contempt

What's the point of Twitter? Who, other than Stephen Fry, can articulate so many daily aphorisms about their fascinating lives?

Well, Twitter came of age this week, when thousands of Twits ensured the wider world got to know the huge oil trading company, Trafigura, had succeeded in secretly preventing the reporting of Parliament.

Under the terms of an injunction granted by the High Court, the Guardian said in an article on 13 October, it was prevented from reporting Parliament and forbidden for saying why. "Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret."

Such articles are far from usual and attracted intense interest from the Twittering classes. And so a spontaneous, organic response erupted to trace a controversial PQ and publicise it. It was not very long before those Twitters zero-ed in on Paul Farrelly (Lab. Newcastle Under Lyme) who had put down questions for Justice Minister, Jack Straw on current cases of whistleblowing and court injunctions. One question was specifically about the legal suppression of the 'Minton' report commissioned by Trafigura, detailing their illegal toxic dumping of oil by-products in Ivory Coast in 2006. The net was deluged with exchanges on Trafigura and by 2 p.m the following day, the injunction was partially lifted.

Knowledge of this obscene example of insatiable corporate greed has spread exponentially against the efforts by Trafigura to shut down the story through old-fashioned libel bully boys, lawyers Carter-Ruck. They still suing BBC Newsnight for initially reporting, in May, the dumping which effected 10,000s of people in Abidjan, many with serious medical conditions.

Of course, MPs are a very indulgent lot, but their absolute privilege to raise any matter in Parliament combined with the media's right to report those proceedings, without prior restraint, is at the very core of British democracy. So victory is sweet for the sanctity of press freedom and its largely thanks to the new media of Twitter.

The question which the papers are not raising yet, is why was this super-injunction granted in the first place? It would be more understandable for his Honour, Mr Justice Maddison to grant an temporary injunction, pending further submissions, if any report were deemed significantly injurious to a company's trading reputation. But that could hardly be said to apply when the matter rested solely on the reporting of questions raised in Parliament, about a report whose existence was already in the public domain.

Why didn't Justice Maddison simply refuse, on the grounds an injunction would contravene the Bill of Rights which grants privilege? It is impossible to say. But the matter is to be thrashed out in the Commons next Wednesday (21 Oct) in a debate raised by Lib-Dem, Dr. Evan Harris. One presumes the public will be able to watch it on BBC Parliament. At least, if we are faced with blank screens, we will have a good idea why.

______________________________________________________

Friday. Stop Press. Carter Ruck have written to the Speaker, John Bercow and all members arguing there was still an "active" case and so the matters to be debated next week were in effect "sub judice". Again, MPs maintain Parliamentary privilege to discuss these matters, "subject to the discretion of the chair."

If any MP were foolish enough to seriously compromise an ongoing trial in a Parliamentary speech then, of course, Speaker Bercow would be correct in preventing further damage to the judicial process. But there is no trial here with a jury at risk of being swayed. Carter Ruck are only referring to any future hearing, on its own injunction, preventing the release of the details of the Minton report. The debate is about law firms interfering in the Sovereignty of Parliament.

This is Bercow's first big test as Speaker. Stand firm, stout fellow.

Cesspit of Indolence

To Westminster, for a Parliamentary debate in Portcullis House on Electoral Reform. If the organisation of the meeting was any indicator, the Electoral Reform Commission will struggle to achieve the critical mass of support for this vital constitutional change.

They had forgotten to organise a chair, there was no literature, nor nameplates let alone any refreshment. They couldn't even work the lights. The exceedingly lofty Daniel Kawczynski (Con. Shrewsbury) kicked off with Brian Donohoe (Lab. Central Ayrshire) for the First-Past-the-Post lobby. Despite half the Cabinet supporting some degree of modernisation to our thoroughly out-dated system, the reformers didn't manage to come up with one MP to speak in support- only a councillor from Glasgow, Stephen Curran and ex-Bethnal Green MP Oona King.

It was a familiar walk through the old issues. I asked Daniel K, if he could not see the democratic principle in PR, then he must at least be aware of how the system he was defending, had punished his own party. In 2005 General Election, the Tories 'won' England by a narrow 75,000 votes but Labour won 92 more seats. His reply, that under PR the Lib-Dems "would always be in power," hardly sufficed.

Then from the back sprang Douglas Carswell (above), MP for Harwich. As a Tory with good reason to anticipate imminent electoral victory, I expected him to support the status quo. But our Doug launched into a tirade about the entire electoral system from top to bottom. He called Parliament a "cesspit of indolence," which was, "monumentally useless at instigating any significant changes to itself." He argued the system which promoted only 10% turnover of seats in any election left MPs to "answer only to the whips and not the people."

Carswell, was clearly imbued with a sense of electoral radicalism, following his speech to the Commons that afternoon promoting his 10-minute rule bill on Recall and Primaries. He is, along with Daniel Hannan, a strong intellectual influence on the right wing of the party, in other words someone who I would rarely agree with politically. But Electoral Reform reaches across all political lines, its supporters have one shared political belief which should trump all others; Parliament should be based on a fair system of democratic representation.

Imminent Relapse

Sir Stuart Bell, (left) has happlily accepted the role as defiant defender of the ancien regime of MPs and their entitlement to outrageous expense claims. As one of only four Members of the Estimate Committee, he is, by definition, a pillar of the Parliamentary establishment. However, 25 years in the Commons has resulted in a thoroughly blunted sensitivity to the opinions of the electorate, even to the point of imperviousness.

The investigations by Sir Thomas Legg into how much money MPs should repay have had to rely on clarified criteria on what is reasonable expenditure. Out of the £24,000 additional cost allowance, Legg has placed a limit on gardening for £1,000 and cleaning of £2,000. On balance he appears to have got these figures about right.

But "no!" scream MPs and their chief bully Sir Stuart, "these criteria are retrospective and unfair". Indeed 'Belly' expected constituents to rally round, telling the BBC, "I think the public would accept that some breach of fairness there, is not actually proper for our Members of Parliament. " Perhaps he really believes the public think that, who can say? It is unlikley to be a commonly held view in his own, perennially depressed, Middlesborough seat.

The Old Dinosaur has conveniantly forgotten the rules set out in the Green Book state claims should be, "only made for expenditure…necessary to perform …parliamentary duties.” This over-arching principle was ignored wholesale by 100s of MPs and it is right for it to be re-applied, albeit in a slightly unscientific manner.

If one persuses the list serial offenders on gardening they are almost exclusively Conservative; Michael Howard, Gerald Howarth, Antony Steen, James Clappison. John Gummer claimed over £9,000 on the estate of his rural property and faces a massive bill. But even weeks after the Telegraph's horrow show headlines, John Selwyn still felt arrogant enough to proclaim to the East Anglian Daily Times, “I have had no critical letters or comments from constituents.” I ensured he had at least one by the following day.

Bell may feel it is his duty to protect his members, like the assistant Secretary of a trade union, but his wider duty is to the public taxpayer. Despite his emminent legal background he appears to be somewhat tongue-tied on occassion and stumbles over his words; he would be well-advised to shut up altogether.

United by Fear

William Hague may not sink 14 pints of beer tonight but I'd be surprised if the Shadow Foreign Sec didn't take a little 'Dutch' courage before the Tories' conference debate on Europe tomorrow.

The Conservatives have suppressed their anger over Europe for so long now it is unpredictable whether it will emerge or erupt. Of course, they are the only major party in Britain who were genuine when they said they supported a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. And that was because they knew the British public would have given it the traditional two-finger salute. But by the time the Cons form the Government in May or June, it will be a fully ratified Treaty and the legal strait-jacket will be firmly secured.

But they're desperate to vote about something. Bonkers Jonkers acknowledged the pickle they're in to Paxman last night; he may talk of 'consultation' but that is a world away from a national referendum. He certainly has a unique collection of political expressions; only Johnson would describe himself as, "but a toe-nail of the body politic."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8292650.stm

Cameron had already suggested to Andrew Marr on Sunday there could be a people's vote on social and employment legislation which, "we're not happy about." Such innocent words. If Britain tried to opt out of the social chapter again or take back provisions on criminal justice matters, it would require all the other EU countries to agree. Why should they?

It's rather like a footballer saying he still wants to play for the club but won't come for training sessions or play away fixtures. It amounts to self-destructive ostracism and is guaranteed to enrage all other parties. Such a referendum would rapidly descend into a question of whether Britain remained in the EU at all. It would entangle the new Conservative Government in a monumental Constitutional crisis in its infancy.

Of course, it is not just high politics and principle which is driving the party to the precipice. The imminent prospect of Anthony Charles Lynton Blair being ordained as first President of the EU Council is abhorrent to every Tory. In fact, it's the only thing they all agree on.

Whoever wins the Presidential vote (by qualified majority voting) should be largely irrelevant if you dispute the entire structural change to the politics. But 'President Blair' is an itch the Tories cannot stop scratching, in fact in speeches it appears to be inextricably tied to the referendum debacle. Boris said last week, "if we are faced with the prospect of Tony Blair suddenly emerging, suddenly pupating into an intergalactic spokesman for Europe, then I think the British people deserve a say."

Blair may assume office as early as 1 January and is odds-on (4/6) to win. Angela Merkel, Nicholas Sarkozy and his old chum Berlusconi want the first incumbent to be a highly prominent figure; when one looks at the other candidates (Juncker, Balkenende) those odds begin to look a bit generous.

If all things were equal, there would be an almighty row at the Manchester Conference tomorrow. Party managers may be able to quell some of the protest and soften the tone. It would be real political theatre to see Norman ' the Polecat' Tebbitt back at the podium, belting out his small-minded, Captain Mainwaring view of the world. I'd like to Cameron smile through that one.