🚀 go-pugleaf

Ian Jackson coughed up some electrons that declared:

> Last night, just before midnight, I caught the tailend of BBC Radio 4
> 'Today in Parliament'.
>
> One of the items was a debate in Parliament about the increasing use of
> the anti-terrorist and paedophilia legislation to stop photography in
> public places. Several MPs were not at all happy with the way things are
> going (or have gone), and said that, despite assurances, some of the
> legislation they have passed was now being used in ways far beyond what
> was originally intended. There was, however, disquiet about the
> implications of the introduction of Google Street.
>
> The item is still available on BBC Radio 4 Listen Again.
> Today in Parliament.
> Wed, 01 Apr 2009
> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00jc36z/Today_in_Parliament_01_04_
> 2009/>
>
> It starts 18m from the beginning.

I've been wondering how long it would take for people to start noticing.
Nice to see some MPs (apart from Damien Green, obviously) are starting to
wake up.

> One of the items was a debate in Parliament about the increasing use of
> the anti-terrorist and paedophilia legislation to stop photography in
> public places. Several MPs were not at all happy with the way things are
> going (or have gone), and said that, despite assurances, some of the
> legislation they have passed was now being used in ways far beyond what
> was originally intended. There was, however, disquiet about the
> implications of the introduction of Google Street.

Worth noting that all the MPs in question voted for the legislation they
are now complaining about.

The reason the laws appear to have "not been scrutinised properly" is
because they weren't.

Ian Jackson wrote:
> Last night, just before midnight, I caught the tailend of BBC Radio 4
> 'Today in Parliament'.
>
> One of the items was a debate in Parliament about the increasing use of
> the anti-terrorist and paedophilia legislation to stop photography in
> public places. Several MPs were not at all happy with the way things are
> going (or have gone), and said that, despite assurances, some of the
> legislation they have passed was now being used in ways far beyond what
> was originally intended. There was, however, disquiet about the
> implications of the introduction of Google Street.
>
> The item is still available on BBC Radio 4 Listen Again.
> Today in Parliament.
> Wed, 01 Apr 2009
> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00jc36z/Today_in_Parliament_01_04_
> 2009/>

It is on they work for you.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id 09-04-01a.262.0

In message <gr3fjj$f9a$1@news.motzarella.org>, Martin
<martin.dann@virgin.net> writes
>Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Last night, just before midnight, I caught the tailend of BBC Radio 4
>> 'Today in Parliament'.
>>
>> One of the items was a debate in Parliament about the increasing use of
>> the anti-terrorist and paedophilia legislation to stop photography in
>> public places. Several MPs were not at all happy with the way things are
>> going (or have gone), and said that, despite assurances, some of the
>> legislation they have passed was now being used in ways far beyond what
>> was originally intended. There was, however, disquiet about the
>> implications of the introduction of Google Street.
>>
>> The item is still available on BBC Radio 4 Listen Again.
>> Today in Parliament.
>> Wed, 01 Apr 2009
>> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00jc36z/Today_in_Parliament_01_04_
>> 2009/>
>
>It is on they work for you.
>
>http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id 09-04-01a.262.0
>
Thanks for that link. That transcript is a much fuller record of the
debate than the short excerpt in Today in Parliament.
--
Ian

On Thu,  2 Apr 2009 22:50:06 +0100, Tim S <ts@dionic.net> wrote:

>Ian Jackson coughed up some electrons that declared:
>
>> Last night, just before midnight, I caught the tailend of BBC Radio 4
>> 'Today in Parliament'.
>>
>> One of the items was a debate in Parliament about the increasing use of
>> the anti-terrorist and paedophilia legislation to stop photography in
>> public places. Several MPs were not at all happy with the way things are
>> going (or have gone), and said that, despite assurances, some of the
>> legislation they have passed was now being used in ways far beyond what
>> was originally intended. There was, however, disquiet about the
>> implications of the introduction of Google Street.
>>
>> The item is still available on BBC Radio 4 Listen Again.
>> Today in Parliament.
>> Wed, 01 Apr 2009
>> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00jc36z/Today_in_Parliament_01_04_
>> 2009/>
>>
>> It starts 18m from the beginning.
>
>I've been wondering how long it would take for people to start noticing.
>Nice to see some MPs (apart from Damien Green, obviously) are starting to
>wake up.

A pity they didn't wake up before they passed the laws, as it was
perfectly obvious then that they were likely to be used more widely
than the framers of the rules intended (or at least, said they
intended).

In message <qdfft4tgpca0uc0s7an37qsn7icvov4in5@4ax.com>, at 21:10:04 on
Sat, 4 Apr 2009, Gareth Erskine-Jones <gej@uberdog.net> remarked:
>>I've been wondering how long it would take for people to start noticing.
>>Nice to see some MPs (apart from Damien Green, obviously) are starting to
>>wake up.
>
>A pity they didn't wake up before they passed the laws, as it was
>perfectly obvious then that they were likely to be used more widely
>than the framers of the rules intended (or at least, said they
>intended).

This crops up time and again. Members of the second house are less
likely to be convinced by ministers saying "we would never use this law
in the way you are suggesting". MPs seem more gullible.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <qdfft4tgpca0uc0s7an37qsn7icvov4in5@4ax.com>, at 21:10:04 on
> Sat, 4 Apr 2009, Gareth Erskine-Jones <gej@uberdog.net> remarked:
>>> I've been wondering how long it would take for people to start noticing.
>>> Nice to see some MPs (apart from Damien Green, obviously) are
>>> starting to
>>> wake up.
>>
>> A pity they didn't wake up before they passed the laws, as it was
>> perfectly obvious then that they were likely to be used more widely
>> than the framers of the rules intended (or at least, said they
>> intended).
>
> This crops up time and again. Members of the second house are less
> likely to be convinced by ministers saying "we would never use this law
> in the way you are suggesting". MPs seem more gullible.

That used to be true, when the Lords largely left their political
affiliations behind.  Not so sure nowadays when the vast majority are
political appointees.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

On 3 Apr, 08:00, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjack...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> In message <gr3fjj$f9...@news.motzarella.org>, Martin
> <martin.d...@virgin.net> writes
>
>
>
> >Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> Last night, just before midnight, I caught the tailend of BBC Radio 4
> >> 'Today in Parliament'.
>
> >> One of the items was a debate in Parliament about the increasing use of
> >> the anti-terrorist and paedophilia legislation to stop photography in
> >> public places. Several MPs were not at all happy with the way things are
> >> going (or have gone), and said that, despite assurances, some of the
> >> legislation they have passed was now being used in ways far beyond what
> >> was originally intended. There was, however, disquiet about the
> >> implications of the introduction of Google Street.
>
> >> The item is still available on BBC Radio 4 Listen Again.
> >> Today in Parliament.
> >> Wed, 01 Apr 2009
> >> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00jc36z/Today_in_Parliament_01_04_
> >> 2009/>
>
> >It is on they work for you.
>
> >http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2009-04-01a.262.0
>
> Thanks for that link. That transcript is a much fuller record of the
> debate than the short excerpt in Today in Parliament.
> --
> Ian

Seconded, thank you very much for the link.  Editorialising is nice
and everything but sometimes it's just nice to have the full text.
This incident stands out to me for me:

 "He had not noticed, but in front of one of those buildings was a
police car containing police community support officers, who had
parked on a double yellow line as they popped into a sandwich bar to
get a no-doubt well-earned sandwich. /It appears that they thought the
photograph was going to be used in evidence against them for parking
on a double yellow line./

Parking in Windsor street has always been a hot issue and has
perplexed me for many a year while I have been here. One of the PCSOs
went over to Mr. Wusche—he probably will not mind me telling the
Chamber that he is in his 70s and has been a model citizen all his
life, having fled fascist Italy—and told him that he must immediately
delete the photographs. When Mr. Wusche asked why, he was handed a
notice and pretty much cautioned. That upset him a great deal, and I
understand why."

I think it's utterly terrifying that someone should receive (I assume
a s44) warning for taking a picture of PCSOs parking illegally,
particularly if that's /why/ the warning is given.  That's really
heading down a particularly bad road.  If not-actually-police are
throwing their weight around and breaking laws and effectively
threatening people who notice and record it then you start to think
that something could be rotten in the state of Denmark.  I would like
to hear how that was resolved.

In message <49d8d2bc$0$15709$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, at 16:50:06 on
Sun, 5 Apr 2009, Old Codger <oldcodger@anyoldwhere.net> remarked:
>>>> I've been wondering how long it would take for people to start noticing.
>>>> Nice to see some MPs (apart from Damien Green, obviously) are
>>>>starting to
>>>> wake up.
>>>
>>> A pity they didn't wake up before they passed the laws, as it was
>>> perfectly obvious then that they were likely to be used more widely
>>> than the framers of the rules intended (or at least, said they
>>> intended).
>>  This crops up time and again. Members of the second house are less
>>likely to be convinced by ministers saying "we would never use this
>>law  in the way you are suggesting". MPs seem more gullible.
>
>That used to be true, when the Lords largely left their political
>affiliations behind.  Not so sure nowadays when the vast majority are
>political appointees.

The "anti-terror" legislation is still given a going-over by a
sufficient number of 'old school' Lords. See the very recent Data
Retention Regulations, for example.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <49d8d2bc$0$15709$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, at 16:50:06 on
> Sun, 5 Apr 2009, Old Codger <oldcodger@anyoldwhere.net> remarked:
>>>>> I've been wondering how long it would take for people to start
>>>>> noticing.
>>>>> Nice to see some MPs (apart from Damien Green, obviously) are
>>>>> starting to
>>>>> wake up.
>>>>
>>>> A pity they didn't wake up before they passed the laws, as it was
>>>> perfectly obvious then that they were likely to be used more widely
>>>> than the framers of the rules intended (or at least, said they
>>>> intended).
>>>  This crops up time and again. Members of the second house are less
>>> likely to be convinced by ministers saying "we would never use this
>>> law  in the way you are suggesting". MPs seem more gullible.
>>
>> That used to be true, when the Lords largely left their political
>> affiliations behind.  Not so sure nowadays when the vast majority are
>> political appointees.
>
> The "anti-terror" legislation is still given a going-over by a
> sufficient number of 'old school' Lords. See the very recent Data
> Retention Regulations, for example.

All I am suggesting is that they are not as reliable as they used to be.

In any event they do not appear to have done much to a lot of the anti
terror legislation.  It is still being misused by all sorts of authorities.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

On 2 Apr, 21:10, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjack...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>
> One of the items was a debate in Parliament about the increasing use of
> the anti-terrorist and paedophilia legislation to stop photography in
> public places. Several MPs were not at all happy with the way things are
> going (or have gone), and said that, despite assurances, some of the
> legislation they have passed was now being used in ways far beyond what
> was originally intended.

This strains credulity. Legislation is always used to its fullest
extent - what value can be placed upon non-binding "assurances" that a
particular piece of legislation will not be used in a certain way? The
whole point of carefully drafting legislation is to have it so that it
cannot be used in any way except that way in which it is intended to
be used.

In message <49da4f01$0$23718$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, at 19:55:22 on
Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Old Codger <oldcodger@anyoldwhere.net> remarked:
>>  The "anti-terror" legislation is still given a going-over by a
>>sufficient number of 'old school' Lords. See the very recent Data
>>Retention Regulations, for example.
>
>All I am suggesting is that they are not as reliable as they used to
>be.
>
>In any event they do not appear to have done much to a lot of the anti
>terror legislation.

Because the Government has a sufficient majority.

>It is still being misused by all sorts of authorities.

And in many cases directly and rapidly in contravention of assurances.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <49da4f01$0$23718$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, at 19:55:22 on
> Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Old Codger <oldcodger@anyoldwhere.net> remarked:
>>>  The "anti-terror" legislation is still given a going-over by a
>>> sufficient number of 'old school' Lords. See the very recent Data
>>> Retention Regulations, for example.
>>
>> All I am suggesting is that they are not as reliable as they used to be.
>>
>> In any event they do not appear to have done much to a lot of the anti
>> terror legislation.
>
> Because the Government has a sufficient majority.

Did they use the parliament act then?

If not your original statement that 'Members of the second house are
less likely to be convinced by ministers saying "we would never use this
law in the way you are suggesting"' has very little real meaning since
they actually did nothing to stop or amend the legislation to minimise
the possibility of it being misused.

>> It is still being misused by all sorts of authorities.
>
> And in many cases directly and rapidly in contravention of assurances.

Which was the whole point of the thread I believe.


--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

Ste wrote:
> On 2 Apr, 21:10, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjack...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> One of the items was a debate in Parliament about the increasing use of
>> the anti-terrorist and paedophilia legislation to stop photography in
>> public places. Several MPs were not at all happy with the way things are
>> going (or have gone), and said that, despite assurances, some of the
>> legislation they have passed was now being used in ways far beyond what
>> was originally intended.
>
> This strains credulity. Legislation is always used to its fullest
> extent - what value can be placed upon non-binding "assurances" that a
> particular piece of legislation will not be used in a certain way? The
> whole point of carefully drafting legislation is to have it so that it
> cannot be used in any way except that way in which it is intended to
> be used.
>
One aspect of European legislation that I think could be adapted for our
use to advantage is the, often significant number of, preamble whereas.
  I believe these have to be considered by the court.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

On 2009-04-06, Old Codger <oldcodger@anyoldwhere.net> wrote:
>> Because the Government has a sufficient majority.
>
> Did they use the parliament act then?
>
> If not your original statement that 'Members of the second house are
> less likely to be convinced by ministers saying "we would never use this
> law in the way you are suggesting"' has very little real meaning since
> they actually did nothing to stop or amend the legislation to minimise
> the possibility of it being misused.

Welcome to politics.

On 6 Apr, 23:20, Old Codger <oldcod...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote:
>
> > This strains credulity. Legislation is always used to its fullest
> > extent - what value can be placed upon non-binding "assurances" that a
> > particular piece of legislation will not be used in a certain way? The
> > whole point of carefully drafting legislation is to have it so that it
> > cannot be used in any way except that way in which it is intended to
> > be used.
>
> One aspect of European legislation that I think could be adapted for our
> use to advantage is the, often significant number of, preamble whereas.
>   I believe these have to be considered by the court.

Whereas your post was slighty garbled, do you refer to the significant
preamble in European directives, where the lawmakers set out what they
have in mind and what things they have taken into account? If so I
would certainly agree with that suggestion.

In message <49da7eae$0$23713$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, at 23:15:10 on
Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Old Codger <oldcodger@anyoldwhere.net> remarked:
>If not your original statement that 'Members of the second house are
>less likely to be convinced by ministers saying "we would never use
>this law in the way you are suggesting"' has very little real meaning
>since they actually did nothing to stop or amend the legislation to
>minimise the possibility of it being misused.

The suggestion I was refuting was that politically appointed Lords had
given rise to a situation where legislation wasn't questioned any more.
It is, and significant amendments still happen. But ministers still
manage to get most of it through, just because they can arrange enough
votes.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <49da7eae$0$23713$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, at 23:15:10 on
> Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Old Codger <oldcodger@anyoldwhere.net> remarked:
>> If not your original statement that 'Members of the second house are
>> less likely to be convinced by ministers saying "we would never use
>> this law in the way you are suggesting"' has very little real meaning
>> since they actually did nothing to stop or amend the legislation to
>> minimise the possibility of it being misused.
>
> The suggestion I was refuting was that politically appointed Lords had
> given rise to a situation where legislation wasn't questioned any more.
> It is, and significant amendments still happen. But ministers still
> manage to get most of it through, just because they can arrange enough
> votes.

I am sorry.  I inferred from the context in which you said "This crops
up time and again. Members of the second house are less likely to be
convinced by ministers saying "we would never use this law in the way
you are suggesting". MPs seem more gullible."  That it had an effect
that MPs couldn't or wouldn't have.  That was why I said "That used to
be true, when the Lords largely left their political affiliations
behind.  Not so sure nowadays when the vast majority are political
appointees."

There were MPs who argued against the anti terror legislation just as
there were Lords who argued against it.  Neither actually made any
difference (possibly the MPs did if the original proposals were changed
in some way during the progress through the Commons) so it is incorrect
to suggest that the Lords are less gullible than MPs.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

Ste wrote:
> On 6 Apr, 23:20, Old Codger <oldcod...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote:
>>> This strains credulity. Legislation is always used to its fullest
>>> extent - what value can be placed upon non-binding "assurances" that a
>>> particular piece of legislation will not be used in a certain way? The
>>> whole point of carefully drafting legislation is to have it so that it
>>> cannot be used in any way except that way in which it is intended to
>>> be used.
>> One aspect of European legislation that I think could be adapted for our
>> use to advantage is the, often significant number of, preamble whereas.
>>   I believe these have to be considered by the court.
>
> Whereas your post was slighty garbled, do you refer to the significant
> preamble in European directives, where the lawmakers set out what they
> have in mind and what things they have taken into account? If so I
> would certainly agree with that suggestion.
>
I believed European Directives to be European legislation so yes.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

In message <49dbab3e$0$23728$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, at 20:40:17 on
Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Old Codger <oldcodger@anyoldwhere.net> remarked:
>There were MPs who argued against the anti terror legislation just as
>there were Lords who argued against it.  Neither actually made any
>difference

It's my impression that the Lords have been in the front line over "42
days without trial".

>(possibly the MPs did if the original proposals were changed in some
>way during the progress through the Commons) so it is incorrect to
>suggest that the Lords are less gullible than MPs.

The Lords express their doubts more robustly, even if they can't always
change the final legislation.
--
Roland Perry