My position on drugs should be fairly apparent to our more regular readers. A quick reminder: they should be legalized. But the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs Council is seeking to shuffle the goalposts slightly by reclassifying ecstasy from a Class A drug to A Class B drug. This is predominately based on a comparison of the amount of harm that a drug has on a person, heroin and cocaine being the most harmful.
It is time that we had an adult debate on the issue, rather than engage this tireless practice of moving drugs back-and-forth within the classes of illegality.
Due to ecstasy's close relation to 'amphetamine' it was already banned in the UK before its usage really took off in the 1980s. But despite it being a banned, today more than 250,000 people take it every month in the UK alone. And almost 5 percent of 10-25 year olds have tried it. Despite this large number of users only 97 people have died whilst under the influence of the drug. [And most of these deaths though could probably have been avoided had the user been properly informed – see Drugscope for more information]
The debate needs to turn away from the ossifying reclassification and pointless arguing amongst politicians. Whether it is an A or a B Class drug is irrelevant. If it were legal, regular users would be fully aware of their actions and those that turned to it would have the information readily available so as to help them make an informed choice. Ultimately, the only way we can win the drug war is by ending it.
P.S. For an excellent insight into herion usage, see Martin Samuel in The Times.
As Sir Ian Blair’s career as Metropolitan Police Commissioner slowly limped to an end with his resignation, serious questions have been raised about our policing system. Although Sir Ian clearly had his own failings, there are other forces at play causing problems within the county’s policing.
Party politics are interfering with the effectiveness of the police. Sir Ian was seen as a New Labour man. So it comes as little surprise that when Boris Johnson became Mayor of London, with tackling crime high up on his agenda, he made Blair’s position uncomfortable. Perhaps he was right to do so.
But the safety of citizens on the streets should be of a greater importance to politicians than point scoring. Rather than concentrating on tackling crime at a street level, political interference causes the leaders of our police forces to focus on meeting targets and handling the media. Tellingly, the Met Police website displays a list of crimes which have fallen over the past year, makes no mention of the knife, gang or cyber crimes which people are increasingly worried about.
The police are not helped in their mission to make our streets safer by the poor allocation of government resources. Our prisons are over crowded, meaning that many convicted criminals are given suspended or shortened sentences, allowing them free reign to re-offend and failing to deter others.
The crypto-fascist scheme to introduce ID Cards is being slowly but surely forced down our throat. Foreign nationals will soon be forced to adopt these wicked devices of control. Next it will be you. Given the stark gravity of the situation, it is worth considering whether or not the scheme will in fact be introduced, and if so, what the reaction of people will be.
It has certainly been a while since the British people have defended for their civil liberties. In the mean time the British have become known for their obsequious, deferential and apathetic behaviour towards those in power. Will the introduction of ID Cards reignite their thirst for freedom?
Well, hopefully it won’t have to. We do have some sense in the House of Commons. Both shadow home secretaries are against the plan. From the Conservatives, Dominic Greave has made it clear that "ID cards are an expensive white elephant that risk making us less - not more safe". Going on to say: “it is high time the Government scrapped this ill-fated project." Chris Huhne of the Liberal Democrats has said that, "The Government has gone wobbly-kneed about rolling this out to anyone with a vote. This is the thin end of the wedge. It does not matter how fancy the design of ID cards is, they remain a grotesque intrusion on the liberty of the British people".
However, if by some perverse miracle Labour manages to win the next election, or – politicians being politicians – the Conservatives change their position on ID Cards, the British people will be have to decide whether or not to burn them (the ID Cards that is) on the streets. The fact that all major newspapers – from the Telegraph to the Guardian and everything in between – are against them, suggests there are strong feelings across the political spectrum. Success will depend upon the organization of dissent by activists such as NO2ID. Provided action is peaceful, it may be the only solution. Imagine, Parliament Square ablaze with ID Cards. Perhaps the celebrations could coincide with November 5th.
The announcement that the government will now be issuing ‘foreign national ID cards’ is another step along a slippery slope. Although initially they will only be issued to foreign nationals entering the country, things will not stop there. A substantial timetable has already been drawn up which could see their universal use by 2018.
It is predicted that this scheme will cost £311mn of taxpayers’ money. Considering that a majority of the population are against the introduction of ID cards this is grotesque misallocation of government money. One of the main arguments for the introduction of these cards is to combat terrorist events such as the 7/7 bombings. But those terrorists were British; they would have been free to travel on any buses around the country with or without ID cards. If a foreign terrorist is determined to kill for his religion, will a piece of laminated plastic really make him think twice?
This is simply an expansion of the surveillance state and another example of poor top-down schemes from an out-of-touch government. Perhaps rather than simply adding another layer of bureaucracy to national security, the government should concentrate on freeing-up the police force with less Whitehall control.
The second main reason for the introduction of these ID cards is that they should help control immigration. But since 2004 there have been falls in the level of net migration into the UK and we have seen waves of past migrants leaving the UK in recent months. Perhaps our over-regulated and stifled labour market isn’t as attractive to migrants as the government thinks.
Personally, I think the government needs to rethink its strategies for combating problems such as national security; clearly generalised and half-blind schemes such as ID cards are not only an injustice on civil liberties, but also a waste of valuable money.
There's a new billboard at the end of my road from the TV Licensing people. Printed over an aerial picture of the city are the words, "LONDON IS IN OUR DATABASE. EVADERS WILL PAY." My immediate reaction is not publishable on a family website. Just who the hell do these people think they are?
Of course, the complete illegitimacy of the licence fee itself makes the TV licensing authority's Gestapo tactics even harder to stomach. Personally, I can't see any justification for taxpayer-financed 'public service broadcasting' in an internet age, when people have vast amounts of media and information available to them at the click of a mouse. And even if I could, I'd have to say the BBC has long since ceased to provide it. Eastenders? Strictly Come Dancing? People may like this trash, sure, but we shouldn’t all be forced to foot the bill.
Anyway, via bbctvlicence.com, here's some handy advice for people dealing with the BBC's stormtroopers:
People who work for TVL/BBC have no more right to enter private residences than people selling dusters.
Without entry, TVL/BBC have no sure means of knowing whether a house has equipment set up to receive broadcasts. That is why they rely on mass mailshots, declaring messages such as, "This is your final warning". They rely on householders' own reaction to these letters, and on self-incrimination during street visits. Without YOUR co-operation, TVL/BBC is impotent.
What about search warrants? Before a search warrant can be issued, TVL/BBC must satisfy the court that they have "reasonable grounds" for believing that broadcasts are being received at the unlicenced address. The simple absence of a licence does not constitute this, nor does the householder's refusal to communicate with TVL/BBC. To obtain a search warrant, TVL/BBC must offer the court positive evidence, such as seeing or hearing a television, or the householder's own admission. Without such evidence, TVL/BBC cannot apply for a search warrant, and without a search warrant, they cannot enter. So, they are back to square one.
Over the past 11 years we’ve seen the English system of common law steadily eroded by the twin powers that are the EU and Labour administrations. According to some, there is now a burgeoning new threat to this already weakened system of justice: Sharia Courts. Stephen Pollard commented in an article for The Times yesterday
Social Democrats across Europe still espouse the wonders of the Swedish welfare state, claiming it to be the model that should be translated into their countries. It appears nobody has told them that the Swedish model is no more. For a while now, Swedish politicians have been busy reforming the state in an attempt to meet public expectations. Opposition parties in this country should take note.
Swedish school reform – the inspiration for Conservative education policy – gets a lot press, yet as this article in the Financial Times shows, reforms have been radical across the board. Arguably, the biggest concern in this country surrounds the disastrous state of public finances. Compare this to Sweden, where “Anders Borg, the finance minister who will present his budget this month, says Sweden can now afford the biggest fiscal boost in Europe – equivalent to 1 per cent of GDP – to counteract the global economic slowdown". Despite the fact that Swedish politicians still work within the language of the welfare state, they have been busy breaking down state monopolies, opening up competition and cutting welfare to incentivize work.
It is not the just the current centre-right government that has led these reforms. The previous Swedish Social Democratic Party, led by Göran Persson was equally keen. As Waldemar Ingdahl, President of the Eudoxa Think-Tank states in a letter to the Financial Times: “the former Social Democratic government instituted far more radical changes than Mr Reinfeldt".
Fear not Guardian readers, there is one area of change that the right-wing Swedish government should back away from. In June, the Swedish government approved a new law permitting surveillance of e-mails and phone calls that cross the country's borders. And government officials filed a complaint against a blogger who published documents revealing that Swedish authorities have long engaged in domestic surveillance. This video documentary explains the situation well. What they give with one hand, they take away with the other.
Pause in the street for a cigarette today and you could find yourself approached by one of a team of stop smoking officers employed to roam the capital. Under plans for a ‘hard hitting’ approach smokers will be approached at bus stops, betting shops and shopping centres and offered a carbon monoxide test to ‘shock’ them into signing up for a stopping smoking service. The plans come on the back of a similar scheme for fat-busting nurses to patrol the streets of Scotland armed with measuring tapes and equipment to test blood pressure.
We all know that smoking is a filthy, expensive and deadly habit - we are told as much by the health warnings emblazoned across our cigarette packets. And we are quite aware that eating fatty foods and drinking too much is not the best way to ensure that you are around to see your great grandchildren. Smoking, drinking and eating too much are choices – choices that we should be free to make.
The approach increasingly adopted by the state - harassing, shaming and persecuting those who do not conform to the puritanical lifestyle that they espouse is designed explicitly with stigmatisation in mind. Government sponsored campaigns increasingly portray smokers and drinkers as unattractive or morally corrupt. But, shaming us into believing that certain choices we make are dirty or abnormal is nothing less than state-sanctioned bullying. And there is nothing attractive or moral about bullies.
The Blair government had a sense of mission. They believed that the government had lost touch with the people, and that the country's problems required strong leadership to sort out. They were fully prepared to accumulate executive power in order to sort out these problems. Institutions that slowed them down or got in the way - the media, parliament, the cabinet, the judiciary - they saw as part of the problem, to be sapped or sidelined. Since they were in tune with the people and knew what the people wanted, they were unapologetic about scrapping institutions, re-writing the constitution, or diluting principles such as trial by jury, double jeopardy or habeas corpus. The perceived threat of terrorism simply strengthened their belief that they had to breach through the old institutional and legal barriers.
Hence it is that we find, some years later, that information on us is recorded and shared with countless American authorities; that scores of officials can enter our homes quite legally; that we can be spot-fined by the local litter warden and arrested for any offence, however minor; and held under anti-terrorist legislation when we shout insults at the Home Secretary.
Do not expect government politicians to show embarrassment for any of this. They fully endorse it all as necessary to achieve what we, the public, demand of them.
That is, of course, at odds with the liberal principle that I subscribe to, which sees government power as the main threat to our liberties, rather than their main defender. The only question is whether, with the traditional barriers against government power now trampled underfoot, any other set of politicians is likely to be able to raise them once again – or indeed would want to.
More conference news – the Lib Dems have vowed to tackle much-needed police reform.
Proposals aim at some very welcome decentralisation – scrapping central targets and providing for directly elected police authorities, which can define local priorities, set budgets and vary taxes where necessary. Whether the plans are ‘radical’ or not is subject to debate. All three of the main parties are starting to at least talk the talk of decentralization.
The moves do put the Lib Dems one step ahead of the Labour government who, for all their talk of localization, look set to retain their grip on policing – setting national standards and using the powers in the Police Reform Act 2002 to specify practice and impose solutions on local police authorities. The Conservatives seem to have the clearest sense of what a decentralized system would look like with proposals for locally elected police commissioners and the abolition of the National Plan.
Ian Johnston, head of the Police Superintendent’s Association, has been making headlines over the past few days with his admission that the quality of service provided by the police is negligible. Indeed, public confidence in the police is extremely low – not helped by the perception that crime is getting worse or the unnecessary sideshow provided by Sir Ian Blair and Tarique Ghaffur. It is heartening then to see some kind of consensus emerging over the need to modernize, decentralize and make the police force more accountable to the people that they serve.
My position on drugs should be fairly apparent to our more regular readers. A quick reminder: they should be legalized. But the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs Council is seeking to shuffle the goalposts slightly by reclassifying ecstasy from a Class A drug to A Class B drug. This is predominately based on a comparison of the amount of harm that a drug has on a person, heroin and cocaine being the most harmful. 
As Sir Ian Blair’s career as Metropolitan Police Commissioner slowly limped to an end with his resignation, serious questions have been raised about our policing system. Although Sir Ian clearly had his own failings, there are other forces at play causing problems within the county’s policing. 
The crypto-fascist scheme to introduce ID Cards is being slowly but surely forced down our throat. Foreign nationals will soon be forced to adopt these wicked devices of control. Next it will be you. Given the stark gravity of the situation, it is worth considering whether or not the scheme will in fact be introduced, and if so, what the reaction of people will be.
The announcement that the government will now be issuing ‘foreign national ID cards’ is another step along a slippery slope. Although initially they will only be issued to foreign nationals entering the country, things will not stop there. A substantial timetable has already been drawn up which could see their universal use by 2018.
Over the past 11 years we’ve seen the English system of common law steadily eroded by the twin powers that are the EU and Labour administrations. According to some, there is now a burgeoning new threat to this already weakened system of justice: Sharia Courts. Stephen Pollard commented in an article for 
Social Democrats across Europe still espouse the wonders of the Swedish welfare state, claiming it to be the model that should be translated into their countries. It appears nobody has told them that the Swedish model is no more. For a while now, Swedish politicians have been busy reforming the state in an attempt to meet public expectations. Opposition parties in this country should take note.
Pause in the street for a cigarette today and you could find yourself approached by one of a team of stop smoking officers employed to roam the capital. Under plans for a ‘hard hitting’ approach smokers will be approached at bus stops, betting shops and shopping centres and offered a carbon monoxide test to ‘shock’ them into signing up for a stopping smoking service. The plans come on the back of a similar scheme for fat-busting nurses to patrol the streets of Scotland armed with measuring tapes and equipment to test blood pressure. 
The Blair government had a sense of mission. They believed that the government had lost touch with the people, and that the country's problems required strong leadership to sort out. They were fully prepared to accumulate executive power in order to sort out these problems. Institutions that slowed them down or got in the way - the media, parliament, the cabinet, the judiciary - they saw as part of the problem, to be sapped or sidelined. Since they were in tune with the people and knew what the people wanted, they were unapologetic about scrapping institutions, re-writing the constitution, or diluting principles such as trial by jury, double jeopardy or habeas corpus. The perceived threat of terrorism simply strengthened their belief that they had to breach through the old institutional and legal barriers.