lobbying secrecy and anti-democracy bill

UK politics review – the lurch towards Fascism

UK political events combine into a lurch towards Fascism.

The gagging law is passed. Called the Transparency of Lobbying Bill, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act it has nothing to do with transparency of lobbying and everything to do with silencing the government’s critics and opponents. It’s a huge blow against trade unions and other campaigning groups like 38degrees and charities. The Conservative-pretendLiberal coalition have attacked democracy by passing this law.

Fascism is described by it’s creator Benito Mussolini as corporatism – the unification of corporations and government. This is entirely the action that the gagging law continues to excuse. Fascism is right-wing authoritarianism typified by attacks on trade unions and political opponents.

Home secretary Theresa May wants to strip suspected terrorists of their nationality and leave them stateless. This is to be done through the use of secret courts. Theresa May has previously stripped dual-nationals of UK nationality so that they could then be renditioned, etc.

This is intended to be done to suspected terrorists. If there was any evidence against them they would be terrorists. Political activists and dissidents are suspected terrorists. Terrorism as defined in UK law is not necessarily anything to do with explosives or arms or similar threats. Once again the government is seen to be silencing it’s critics and opponents.

Madman and London Mayor Boris Johnson wants police to use water cannon and “get medieval” on protesters. The riots of 2011 were sparked by the police murder of Mark Duggan.

Tory MP calls police on handful of retired constituents delivering petition against lobbying bill ‘gagging law’

Mark Duggan: profile of Tottenham police shooting victim

later edit: Home Secretary Theresa May’s intention is to deprive ‘naturalised’ subjects i.e. from abroad and granted UK status, of UK nationality. It’s still disproportionate since it only needs suspicion rather than any evidence and the powers are bound to be extended later. Politicians love terrorism because it gives them cover for Fascist laws.

Although reported almost universally as suspected terrorists it is actually “… the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory.” [source] That seems far wider than suspected terrorists.

5/2/14
Rise in citizenship-stripping as government cracks down on UK fighters in Syria | The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

Former British citizens killed by drone strikes after passports revoked | The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

‘Medieval Exile’: The 41 Britons stripped of their citizenship | The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

Continue ReadingUK politics review – the lurch towards Fascism

David Cameron consorts with tax-dodgers to censor the web

Image of Jimmy Savile and Margaret Thatcher
Jimmy Savile and Margaret Thatcher

It is announced today that Downing Street is to work with massive search engine tax-dodgers Google to hugely censor the web. Under the guise of attempting to frustrate paedophiles, Downing St and Google intend to censor 100,000 search terms.

Cameron and the UK government are simply hugely censoring the internet. This measure will not affect paedophiles since they don’t use Google to search for paedophile material. Instead it will frustrate users legally searching for legitimate materials. It is quite simply huge censorship of the web. It will actually – and is quite possibly intended to – have the opposite effect of assisting internet paedophiles by posing difficulties to independent researchers.

It is a mistake to think that the internet is not already hugely censored. Do you think that search engines do not already censor paedophile and alternative political materials? This blog is hugely censored for political reasons: you won’t find this blog in a school or library. Try searching for some terms from this blog like “war of bullshit”. [Just realised that it works on Google]

There are not 100,000 paedophile search terms and paedophiles don’t use Google anyway. How can this be anything except a huge exercise in censorship?

We have already seen that UK Conservatives want to censor the web. Their lobbying bill is a huge attack on democracy attempting to neuter charities and unions. They are simply trying to take out their opposition in a very evil way totally opposed to democracy, freedom and liberty.

If it is accepted that there simply is not 100,000 search terms related to paedophilia then what is going to be censored? There are elite paedophile rings protected by the UK authorities. Jimmy Savile and Cyril Smith were protected by UK authorities. I know of one paedo who was close to Tony Blair who is protected by UK authorities. When you censor the web, you are protecting these paedos.

8.30pm 18/11/13

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10457465/David-Cameron-Spies-tracking-internet-paedophiles-are-like-the-Enigma-code-breakers-of-World-War-II.html

Jim Gamble, former Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) chief executive, said that while Mr Cameron’s influence has “accelerated” the process of getting the search engines to ban 100,000 search terms.

However he said it was the peer-to-peer networks that need to be targeted if the Government wants to track down paedophiles.

He said: “Very few paedophiles in my experience use Google.”

“At the end of the day a pop up message is not going to inform, educated or scare a paedophile they know what they do is wrong, that’s why they are secretive about it that’s why they hide in the peer to peer of the dark web where they cant be found.”

  1. Confirmation that paedos do not use Google as I stated earlier in this post.
  2. There is a confused use of terms. The dark web is a reference to Tor, which is not a peer-to-peer network (like BitTorrent).
  3. The paedos are using Tor not peer-to-peer.

[19/11/13 This story seems to have died very suddenly – there are only a few mentions today of yesterday’s events.

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/david-camerons-crackdown-on-child-porn-needs-some-work

… Cameron claimed the search queries targeted, which were drawn up by child protection experts, were “unambiguous,” but that seems quite frankly impossible. There are reportedly as many as 100,000 terms on the list—for comparison, the second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary contains 231,100 entries. There seems a real risk, then, of the algorithm overreaching and preventing web users from accessing perfectly legal content. …

[like (conservative or tory or lord or rich or falconer or blair) and (paedo or paedophile or nonce),

“straw rendition torture”,

“dodgy dossier”,

“misled parliament”,

“public inquiry”,

“conservative broken promises”,

etc. ]

Join the IWF to see child porn. This achieves nothing – police and intelligence services already have access.

[20/11/13 To clarify this.

Tor works by routing encrypted requests through a circuit of relays. The circuits change often. The Tor exit node is at the other end to the user and is unencrypted to the requested resource (on the open web, not if the target resource is on a Tor hidden service e.g. illegal paedo porn). The Tor user cannot be identified unless she has made a mistake e.g. identifying herself through an email address or has been infected as Anonymous did.

The confusion that spooks, ex-spooks, prime ministers and news reporters are showing between the Tor anonymity network and peer-to-peer networks is due to two issues.

  1. Prime Ministers and news reporters don’t understand it and are following the lead of spooks, ex-spooks and spooky advisors, and
  2. At the network level i.e. where spooks are intercepting traffic, they can’t distinguish Tor from peer-to-peer traffic so to them it is the same. {Later edit: 2 is based on intuition. It should not be taken as a statement of fact or knowledge.} ]

Confusion between Tor and peer-to-peer continues. Pursuing peer-to-peer seems a wasted effort.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/18/online-child-abuse-peer-to-peer

The Internet Watch Foundation does not at the moment pursue images and videos on so-called peer-to-peer networks because it lacks permission from the Home Office. But it was announced on Monday that the watchdog would begin a six-month pilot scheme in collaboration with Google, Microsoft and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection agency (Ceop), so that IWF can develop procedures to identify and blacklist links to child abuse material on P2P services.

Independent: Search engines take on child abuse: The ‘massive breakthrough’ where little has changed

This post subject to change.

Continue ReadingDavid Cameron consorts with tax-dodgers to censor the web

The lobbying bill is a gift to union bashers

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/11/lobbying-bill-gift-to-union-bashers-blacklisting

Given what we know about blacklisting, the lobbying bill’s demands on union membership lists pose a sinister threat

The government’s lobbying bill may be in trouble, but its attack on the confidentiality of union membership records continues in the Lords on Monday. To avoid what would have been a stonking defeat, ministers last week announced a “pause” on part two of this troubled bill, which would restrict free speech for groups other than political parties during an election campaign. The huge opposition it has provoked from across the political spectrum forced the government into this tactical retreat.

But this is no time to celebrate. The government has merely delayed debate in the House of Lords until December on part two – and it has brought forward to later on Monday the attacks on trade union membership contained in part three of the bill. They still aim to finish the bill by Christmas. Debating it in a different order is no victory for campaigners.

No one other than unions might be thought to be interested in plans for tying up union membership systems in blue tape. But there are wider questions at stake about how much personal data should be open to the state and its organs. The bill requires unions to appoint independent membership “assurers” from a list provided by government. These assurers, plus the government-appointed union regulator (the certification officer), and any other investigators appointed, will all have access to union membership records.

Any employer or political opponent of trade unionism will be able to make complaints about membership, which have to be investigated. As the extent of blacklisting in the construction industry has been revealed, members are naturally concerned at union lists being made open.

The government is unable to say why this section of the bill is needed. There is already a strong legal requirement on unions to have robust membership lists. Unions need efficient systems to collect subscriptions and they know that if there is anything dodgy about the membership in a strike ballot, the employer will win an injunction.

Freedom of information requests have established that no one has called on the government to introduce such a measure. And, according to its website, the Certification Office has received no complaints from trade union members relating to registers since 2004. On top of that, between 2000 and 2004 only six complaints were received – five of which were dismissed and no declaration was issued for the sixth.

…

Continue ReadingThe lobbying bill is a gift to union bashers

Tories put Lobbying Bill on hold over fears of embarrassing defeat in House of Lords

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-put-lobbying-bill-on-hold-over-fears-of-embarrassing-defeat-in-house-of-lords-8923325.html

Climbdown viewed as ‘humiliating’ after MPs claimed vested interests were being let off the hook

Image of a dog's breakfast in dog food bowl

The Government has put the most controversial part of its Lobbying Bill on hold as it struggles to secure the measure’s passage through Parliament.

In an unusual move, ministers shelved for five weeks a debate on its plans to restrict campaigning by charities so they can rethink them. The retreat was seen as an attempt to head off an embarrassing defeat in the House of Lords tonight, where peers were threatening to delay the Bill for three months.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire, the Cabinet Office spokesman in the House of Lords, said discussion of the new charity laws would be put back until the week starting December 16.

He told peers the Government was “open minded about changing a number of aspects” of the legislation. After talks with ministers, Lord Ramsbotham, a crossbench peer, agreed not to put his call for a three-month pause to a vote.

Lord Wallace said debate on other parts of the Bill would continue in the Lords, and the Government still planned to finish its committee stage by Christmas. During the “pause” he and other ministers would “consult widely all of the interested parties, members of this House and the many others outside”. He said they would draw on the work of the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement, chaired by the former Bishop of Oxford Lord Harries of Pentregarth, which warned that the measure risked “profoundly undermining the very fabric of our democracy”.

…

27/11/13 Having received a takedown notice from the Independent newspaper for a different posting, I have reviewed this article which links to an article at the Independent’s website in order to attempt to ensure conformance with copyright laws.

I consider this posting to comply with copyright laws since
a. Only a small portion of the original article has been quoted satisfying the fair use criteria, and / or
b. This posting satisfies the requirements of a derivative work.

Please be assured that this blog is a non-commercial blog (weblog) which does not feature advertising and has not ever produced any income.

dizzy

Continue ReadingTories put Lobbying Bill on hold over fears of embarrassing defeat in House of Lords

Peers seek to delay lobbying bill for three months CORRECTED

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/05/lobbying-bill-peers-seek-delay-three-months

Crossbench peer Lord Ramsbotham wants to refer part of bill on regulating charities and thinktanks to special committee

Image of a dog's breakfast in dog food bowlAn audacious attempt is to be made to delay the lobbying bill for three months in the Lords by putting its controversial plans for limiting the campaigning activities of charities into a special committee for detailed consideration.

…

The call for a pause is being made by an alliance of charities, thinktanks, faith groups and unions.

It is being argued that a pause would allow the government to get the bill right, and to hold the consultation it failed to hold before the bill was published.

Ministers argue that they have already made substantial concessions in the Commons to meet the fears of charities and pressure groups, who say the bill will have a chilling effect on their campaigning ahead of the general election.

Simon Barrow, the co-director the Christian thinktank Ekklesia, has warned the bill is too weak in bringing corporate lobbyists to account but unjustifiably limits the freedom of expression on charities, civil society organisations and thinktanks – restrictions that amount to gagging orders.

The House of Lords constitution committee warned “effective parliamentary scrutiny matters in relation to every bill but it is of manifest importance where legislation is of constitutional significance. The present bill directly affects the ability of people and organisations to engage with the government and to participate in political and electoral campaigning.”

The committee asked whether part two was necessary.

…

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/05/government-offers-concessions-lobbying-bill-charities-elections

Lord Wallace under pressure to delay bill, allowing fresh scrutiny, amid concerns over gagging of charities at election times

The coalition government started to offer concessions on the lobbying bill ahead of a vote on Tuesday afternoon that might lead to proposals for a three-month pause in the bill’s scrutiny and reference of the regulation of charities at election times to a special select committee.

Lord Wallace, the minister handling the bill, has written to coalition peers saying he is willing to raise the threshold substantially to ensure smaller charities are not covered by the bill’s provisions that restrict the campaigning activity of charities during an election period.

Ministers have also proposed that scrutiny of the section of the bill addressing charity campaigning could be deferred as long as six weeks, so long as the rest of the bill continued as normal.

Lord Ramsbotham, the cross bench peer pushing for a full three month delay, does not appear likely to be accept the compromise, and will push for delay to allow a fresh scrutiny of the bill.

Lord Ramsbotham’s plan, with Labour backing, would mean the referral of part two of the bill to a special select committee, which would also delay consideration of other aspects of the bill.

…

Continue ReadingPeers seek to delay lobbying bill for three months CORRECTED

Lib Dem MPs targeted by campaign group over lobbying bill

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/20/lobbying-bill-liberal-democrats-targeted-campaign-group-38-degrees

Image of a rally against the lobbying bill in London on 8 October.

With the controversial lobbying bill having moved from the Commons to the Lords this month MPs might have hoped they would now be spared the protests of those worried the new law will curb the campaigning ability of charities and voluntary groups.

One organisation has redoubled its efforts, however, organising a rush of public meetings with Liberal Democrat MPs to remind them, it says, that their traditionally grassroots-based party should know better than to back such a measure.

The group, 38 Degrees, has set up 11 public meetings over little more than a week with MPs, 10 of them with Lib Dems and one with the Tory Chloe Smith, to demand continued attention over what is officially called the transparency of lobbying, non-party campaigning and trade union administration bill. Concentrating the MPs’ minds still further is the fact that several of them have distinctly slim majorities, several hovering around 1,000 and in the case of Simon Wright in Norwich South, a mere 310.

All the MPs at some point either supported or abstained on votes for the bill, which seeks to impose financial limits on spending “for election purposes”. A number of charities and campaign groups have warned this could affect even non-party political activities despite a series of amendments, said David Babbs, the executive director of 38 Degrees.

“We want to give the MPs a strong reminder that the lobbying bill threatens very popular institutions like charities and community groups, things that are generally held in much higher regard than they are, and their constituents will take a keen interest in how they voted on this,” he said. “Secondly, we want to remind MPs about what’s good about grassroots community campaigning, which this bill threatens to constrain. Most MPs at some point thought this stuff was important.”

…

Continue ReadingLib Dem MPs targeted by campaign group over lobbying bill

Lords raise concerns with “rushed” Lobbying Bill

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/constitution-committee/news/lobbying-bill/

18 October 2013

The House of Lords Constitution Committee has today published its report on the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill and has raised “significant concerns” about the content and handling of the bill.

The report comes ahead of the second reading of the bill in the Lords on 22 October. The report says that effective parliamentary scrutiny is of “manifest importance” for legislation of constitutional significance such as the bill, which regulates lobbying and sets rules on expenditure by persons or bodies other than political parties at elections.

The committee questions whether the significant lowering of the cap on expenditure at general elections by third parties is justified, given the fundamental constitutional right to freedom of political expression. The committee points to the lack of consultation by the Government on the proposals, including with the Electoral Commission, as well as the lack of clarity on how the changes will affect campaigning in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

The committee raises questions about the narrow definition of lobbying in the bill, which excludes “in-house” lobbyists and covers only communications between professional consultant lobbyists and ministers or permanent secretaries. The committee encourages the House of Lords to consider whether this definition is appropriate.

Committee Chairman

Commenting, Baroness Jay of Paddington, chairman of the House of Lords Constitution Committee, said:

“The committee is concerned about the restrictions on the right to freedom of political expression that will result from the proposal to limit third-party expenditure at general elections. We think this constitutional right should only be interfered with where there is clear justification for doing so.

 

“We are also concerned that the lobbying bill will not achieve its objectives of increasing transparency and restoring public confidence. We have therefore recommended that the House of Lords considers whether the limited definition of lobbying in the bill, which excludes in-house public affairs work and covers only communication with ministers and permanent secretaries, will provide adequate transparency.

 

“We are critical of the hurried way in which this legislation has proceeded, which has resulted in a lack of consultation. Bills of constitutional importance such as this should not be rushed through Parliament.”

Continue ReadingLords raise concerns with “rushed” Lobbying Bill

Grand alliance of unions and lobbyists want Lords to kill Government lobbying bill

Image of dog's breakfast in dog food bowlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/grand-alliance-of-unions-and-lobbyists-want-lords-to-kill-government-lobbying-bill-8877469.html

A unique alliance of trade unions, professional lobbyists and constitutional reform activists has been formed to pressurise the House of Lords into wrecking the Government’s “flawed” reforms of Britain’s lobbying industry.

The lobbying transparency bill, piloted by Andrew Lansley, was passed by the Commons last week despite almost universal criticism outside Parliament describing it as a “dog’s breakfast”.

However the new alliance, called “1% is not enough”, which will formally launch this week, wants the Lords to recognise the “deep flaws” in the legislation that was supposed to honour David Cameron’s pre-election promise to put an end to lobbying scandals.

<original posting snipped>

…

27/11/13 Having received a takedown notice from the Independent newspaper for a different posting, I have reviewed this article which links to an article at the Independent’s website in order to attempt to ensure conformance with copyright laws.

I consider this posting to comply with copyright laws since
a. Only a small portion of the original article has been quoted satisfying the fair use criteria, and / or
b. This posting satisfies the requirements of a derivative work.

Please be assured that this blog is a non-commercial blog (weblog) which does not feature advertising and has not ever produced any income.

dizzy

Continue ReadingGrand alliance of unions and lobbyists want Lords to kill Government lobbying bill

Politics news links

A selection of links to political news. The lobbying bill discussed in Parliament on Tuesday and Wednesday has not been addressed by corporate media.

Firefighters to stage five-hour strike next week

…

“No firefighter wants to strike, and it’s desperately disappointing that governments in Westminster and Cardiff continue to deny reality over pensions costs and the need for a pension scheme that reflects the job firefighters do.

“Firefighters simply cannot be expected to fight fires and rescue families in their late 50s and into their 60s.” …

UK asylum seekers ‘told to prove they are lesbian or gay’

…

In the report produced by the Home Affairs Committee, they expressed concerns over the way the UK Border Agency made decisions and highlighted the 30 per cent of appeals against initial decisions approved in 2012.

They noted the 32,600 asylum cases backlogged from 2011 which had yet to be resolved, with some waiting up to 16 years in extreme cases.

They also focused on the way asylum seekers who claim to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex are treated. The report found they faced “extraordinary obstacles” in persuading immigration officers of their case.

In the report, it said: “The battleground is now firmly centred in ‘proving’ that they are gay. In turn, this has led to claimants going to extreme lengths to try and meet the new demands of credibility assessment in this area, including the submission of photographic and video evidence of highly personal sexual activity to caseworkers, presenting officers and the judiciary.”

The committee stressed “it is not appropriate to force people to prove their sexuality if there is a perception that they are gay.”

Its chairman, Labour MP Keith Vaz, told BBC News: “It is absurd for a judge or a caseworker to have to ask an individual to prove that they are lesbian or gay, to ask them what kind of films they watch, what kind of material they read. …

Royal Mail share buyers profit as price soars

… Royal Mail shares, which the government sold at 330p, started trading at 450p on Friday morning and peaked as high as 459p before settling at 445p at 9am.

The steep share price rise will heighten accusations that the government “massively shortchanged” taxpayers by significantly undervaluing the 500-year-old national institution.

Royal Mail’s market value has risen by more than £1.1bn to £4.5bn. The government valued the company at a maximum £3.3bn, and attacked analysts who valued Royal Mail at £4.5bn as “way out”. …

Driving age could be raised to 18 in UK – with a curfew and strict rules for recently-qualified drivers

The driving age in the UK could be raised to 18 and a curfew introduced for newly-qualified drivers, under recommendations put forward in research commissioned by the Government.

Under the proposals, prospective drivers would have to be 17 before they could begin a 12-month “learner stage”, during which they would need to complete more than 100 hours on the road and fill out a log-book recording their progress.

A “probationary” licence – and a mandatory “P” plate to go on their car – would be given only once the driver had turned 18, completed the first stage and passed their tests.

For a further 12 months the young person would be subject to a number of new restrictions, including a curfew from 10pm to 5am unless they were accompanied by an adult over 30, a ban on carrying any passengers at all under the age of 30, and stricter rules on mobile phone use (even hands-free) and alcohol consumption.

Only once all these stipulations were met would a person be granted a full licence and unrestricted driving.

…

Energy price rise sparks new political row over power bills

Miliband said the SSE announcement highlighted the need for a price freeze. He tweeted: “New electricity and gas prices announced today show the need to freeze bills.”

In a second tweet, he wrote: “We need an energy market which works for ordinary families and businesses.”

The SSE announcement, which prompted the Tory energy minister Michael Fallon to express his disappointment, comes at a politically sensitive moment on the issue of fuel prices. …

Guardian’s NSA revelations: spies to go under spotlight

…

 

27/11/13 Having received a takedown notice from the Independent newspaper for a different posting, I have reviewed this article which links to an article at the Independent’s website in order to attempt to ensure conformance with copyright laws.

I consider this posting to comply with copyright laws since
a. Only a small portion of the original article has been quoted satisfying the fair use criteria, and / or
b. This posting satisfies the requirements of a derivative work.

Please be assured that this blog is a non-commercial blog (weblog) which does not feature advertising and has not ever produced any income.

dizzy

Continue ReadingPolitics news links

Andrew Lansley’s lobbying Bill is still a ‘dog’s breakfast’

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andrew-lansleys-lobbying-bill-is-still-a-dogs-breakfast-8861358.html

Charities caught up in confusing legislation intended to regulate lobbyists and lobbying

Andrew Lansley’s last-minute efforts to revamp the heavily criticised lobbying Bill has meant the Government has spent the last month in “a headless chicken run” on flawed legislation that will have a “chilling effect” on the efforts of charities and campaigning organisations, according to an electoral lawyer and a rights activist.

Mr Lansley, the controversial former health secretary who is now Leader of the Commons, is again under fire after the Government last week published a series of amendments designed to improve the Bill, described in August by the head of the Commons constitutional reform select committee, Graham Allen, as a “dog’s breakfast”.

The Commons will revisit Mr Lansley’s awkwardly-named “Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill” on Tuesday. However, the claimed “improvements” made after Mr Allen’s committee questioned the House leader last month appear to have made the legislation even worse.

<original content snipped>

…

27/11/13 Having received a takedown notice from the Independent newspaper for a different posting, I have reviewed this article which links to an article at the Independent’s website in order to attempt to ensure conformance with copyright laws.

I consider this posting to comply with copyright laws since
a. Only a small portion of the original article has been quoted satisfying the fair use criteria, and / or
b. This posting satisfies the requirements of a derivative work.

Please be assured that this blog is a non-commercial blog (weblog) which does not feature advertising and has not ever produced any income.

dizzy

Continue ReadingAndrew Lansley’s lobbying Bill is still a ‘dog’s breakfast’