Britannia Radio

I send the first item here because it illustrates exactly the mindset 
of this dreadful government where members of the public are merely 
cogs in their Stalinist machine.  They will do as they are told,  and 
be answerable to - of all people - the corrupted police, who have 
lost the support they once held of the population.

David Davis, in resigning and fighting that strange by-election, was 
right to foresee the way things were  moving.  He has been totally 
vindicated.

xxxxxxxxxxxxx cs
=========================
TELEGRAPH    3.12.08
1. Police and immigration given powers to demand to see identification
Police and immigration officers will be able to stop Britons and 
demand they prove their identity under proposed sweeping new powers.
    [This Bill is further proof that the government's plan and and 
purpose is to remove our liberties and give sweeping dictatorial 
powers to Police who are already out of control -cs]

By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor

Clauses in the draft Immigration and Citizenship Bill give state 
officials the power to make anyone who has ever entered the country, 
at any time, prove who they are without needing any suspicion of a 
potential crime.
Civil liberty groups warned that the catch-all clauses would 
effectively cover any British citizen who has ever left the UK, even 
for a holiday, because they will have "entered" the UK on their return.

Refusing to hand over the necessary documents would be a criminal 
offence with a maximum penalty of almost a year in prison and/or a 
hefty fine.

Officers will also be able to hold someone until they meet the 
requirements and can even demand a medical examination, although that 
will be more targeted at foreign nationals arriving from countries 
with high health risks of contagious diseases.

Critics said the move would see a return to war-time Britain where 
citizens had to carry their "papers" with them and accused the 
Government of bringing in compulsory ID cards by the back door.

Phil Booth, national coordinator of the NO2ID campaign, said: "We 
have not had any sort of law like this outside of war time.
"In practice it will be impossible to determine who has or has not 
entered the UK and therefore this applies to anyone in the UK."

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne added: "This is 
potentially a catch-all power which would allow the police or the 
officials to arrest and hold anyone who was unable to prove their own 
identity.
"The Government has always promised that it would never introduce 
such a draconian intrusion into our daily lives."

The clauses in the Bill, contained in the Queen's Speech, were 
unearthed by civil rights group Liberty and centre on a power to 
examine those who "arrive in, enter or seek to enter the UK".

A sub-clause refers to anyone who "has entered the UK" and can 
therefore mean anyone who has entered either recently or in the past.

It means police or immigration officers would have the power to stop 
anyone, either at a port of entry or inside the country, and demand 
their identity purely on the basis they may have entered the UK at 
some point.

Clause 28 gives the power to require the production of a passport or 
other valid identity document.

A Liberty spokeswoman said: "This extends powers of examination to 
several new categories including anyone in the UK (whether a British 
citizen or not) who has ever left the UK at any time. "

Currently, police or immigration officers can ask for identity if 
there is reasonable suspicion of a crime or immigration offence.

The Liberty spokeswoman added: "Clause 28(3) dramatically changes 
this premise allowing identity documents to be demanded of anyone 
that has at any time entered the UK by anyone authorised by the 
Secretary of State. No suspicion of criminality or immigration 
offending is required."

She said it went "far beyond" what is reasonable for immigration 
control, adding: "We believe that the catch-all remit of this power 
is disproportionate and that its enactment would not only damage 
community relations but would represent a fundamental shift in the 
relationship between the State and those present in the UK."

Around eight in ten UK citizens have a passport and the majority of 
those will have left the country at some point and therefore have 
"entered" again.

The clauses are in the draft bill to be put forward in the Queen's 
Speech.
They say refusal to submit to demands for identification would be a 
criminal offence that carries a maximum penalty of no more than 51 
weeks in prison and or a £5,000.

The Government is currently rolling out the controversial ID cards 
programme for both foreign nationals and Britons but has insisted it 
will not be compulsory for Britons to carry the cards.

But Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said: "Sneaking in compulsory 
identity cards via the back door of immigration law is a cynical 
escalation of this expensive and intrusive scheme.

Shadow Immigration Minister, Damian Green, added "This scheme will do 
nothing to improve our security, may make it worse, and will 
certainly land the tax-payer with a multi-million pound bill.
"Labour should be concentrating their efforts on things that will 
actually improve our security, like a dedicated UK Border police 
force, instead of trying to introduce ID cards through the back door.
"Now more than ever the issue of our basic freedoms is very important."

A Home Office spokeswoman insisted there were no plans to make it 
compulsory for British citizens to carry or produce forms of identity.
She said: "It is simply wrong to claim there are any plans whatsoever 
to make identity cards compulsory for British citizens or to require 
British citizens to have their ID card - or any other form of ID - on 
them at all times and to present it when asked to do so.
"From next year British citizens will have the convenience of being 
able to use identity cards to travel in Europe, but they will not 
become the only way to prove your identityat borders and the UK 
passport will still be valid.
"In order to maintain an effective immigration control it is only 
right that we ask everyone attempting to enter to the UK to produce a 
valid identity document."   [But this is not what the legislation 
proposes, so this deliberate evasion of the truth -cs]

But Mr Booth said it was "appallingly-drafted legislation", adding: 
"They have got to the point that we must take the worst possible 
implication of the legislation."
=========================
POLITICS HOME  2.12.08
Comments on Police Scandal
===========================
BBC News at 17:23
Howard: "Astonished" Smith had no knowledge of arrest

Michael Howard, Former Conservative leader

Mr Howard has called for a debate in the Commons tomorrow into the 
handling of the Damian Green arrest, he said he was "astonished" that 
the Home Secretary had no knowledge of the arrest.

"Jacqui Smith says she doesn't know anything. Why didn't she know, is 
she not in control of her department?

"I certainly would have expected to have known. I would expect to be 
told when I was Home Secretary that such an arrest was imminent.

"I wonder if she had asked not to be told."

When asked if the Speaker had acted improperly, he said "It is very 
clear as to who did what where, I think we need a debate."

"All this underlines the need for an urgent debate in the Commons, I 
believe we should have that debate tomorrow."
---------------------------
Sky News at 17:40

Shortly after Mr Howard said he agreed with the Prime Minister "that 
no MP should be above the law".

"We have had leaks for as long as we've had politics, we have never 
before had an arrest of a Member of Parliament.

"If Gordon Brown had been subjected to this approach he would  have 
been under arrest for half his time in opposition.

"It has always been a part of our tradition that Members of 
Parliament are privileged in the sense they are able to do their job 
properly without interference."
----------------------
Newsnight, BBC Two at 10:40

Later, Mr. Howard said that it was "ridiculous" that Ms Smith had not 
been informed.

He suggested that Ms Smith had refused to be told about the matter:  
"I'd like to know why she wasn't told.  Could it perhaps have been 
because she said she didn't want to know?

"She shouldn't, of course, intervene or control the investigation, 
but I would expect her to know what is going on."