Khoodeelaar! FORESAW, as far back as 2007 that Boris Johnson would fail the people of London spectacularly
2158 [2145] Hrs GM T London Monday 30 March 2009:
KHOODEELAAR! TOLD BORIS JOHNSON SO! And KHOODEELAAR! TOLD about Boris Johnson so too! Khoodeelaar! FORESAW, as far back as 2007 and in the week of the announcement by the London Daily Telegraph of Boris Johnson's own announcement as a potential contender for election [the still almost a year away] to the post of mayor in the name of London.. We had FORESEEN that Boris Johnson would become exposed as shallow. In fact we had known of the DARIUS GUPPY ‘conversation’. We had known of OTHER Boris Johnson scams. Like his having made up things. We did NOT list those in full in 2007. We did the next dignified thing. We advised Boris Johnson to make sure that he had a HIGHER moral and ethical standard than Ken Livingstone. We said this in the knowledge that Ken Livingstone had corrupted public life in London. And that no one who did not have the moral and the ethical qualifications and qualities should be allowed to seek or to occupy the post in the name of the people of London ... No media outfit, including the Channel 4 station, picked up on our warning and our advice to Boris. No one even explored the theme. No newspaper or blog discussed this. In the months around Johnson’ announcement and plugs as a candidate, we posted similar views on the web site of the London magazine the Spectator [which Boris had been editor of] and on the web site of the London daily Telegraph and on the Times newspaper. There was no follow-up by anyone else on any of our comments and concerns about Boris Johnson's’ fitness to occupy the post. In view of the contents of the Channel 4 Dispatches programme as broadcast at 1900 Hrs GMT this evening, we can say EVIDENTIALLY, factually and accurately: KHOODEELAAR! TOLD YOU SO.. And on that empirical evidential accurate basis, KHOODEELAAR! is telling Boris Johnson again: Scrap Crossrail and quit peddling for Big Business Crossrail hole/s scam...
[To be continued]
33rd year AADHIKAR
0225 GMT Thursday 06 June 2013
AADHIKAR Media Foundation Editor © Muhammad Haque
Founding News Editor
Shah M Azizul Haque
AADHIKAR Media Foundation established with the publication of AADHIKAR the weekly on Monday 19 December 1980 from London E1 UK.
Monday, March 30, 2009
KHOODEELAAR! evidential note on the duplicity of the UK Channel4News site APPEARING to be rigorous about UK Interior Minister Jacqui Smith
2048 Hrs GMT London Monday 30 March 2009
KHOODEELAAR! evidential note on the duplicity of the UK Channel4News site APPEARING to be rigorous about UK Interior Minister Jacqui Smith
[To be continued[
What's in Jacqui Smith's expenses?
Print this page
Last Modified: 30 Mar 2009
By: Channel 4 News
As the saga of the home secretary's second home takes another twist with the revelation that adult videos were included in her expenses, we list some of the items she claimed for.
Last month it emerged that Smith was facing a parliamentary "sleaze" investigation over her taxpayer-funded second home allowance claims.
She claimed at least £116,000 of the commons second home allowance on her constituency home in Redditch, where her family live, by designating her sister's house in south-east London as her main home.
Smith insisted she had done nothing wrong and said her accommodation arrangements were fully in line with commons rules.
But yesterday the home secretary was again in the firing line when she had to apologise for an expenses claim which included two adult films viewed at their home.
The Sunday Express said documents going back to 2001 show Smith had claimed £150,304 for the cost of running a second home since 2001, including the films.
The expenses covered council tax, utilities and insurance but also included:
a Habitat stone kitchen sink worth £550
a dining room table worth £460
a sofa bed at £704
a reclaimed antique-style fireplace costing £1,000
a £399 Hotpoint cooker plus £15 connection
a £189 Hotpoint tumble dryer
two washing machines, worth £550 over two years
home entertainment included DVD players, two Samsung widescreen TVs and two digital set-top boxes worth more than £1,100
an 88p bath plug
the bill from Virgin Media which included the two 18-rated "additional features" which cost £5 each to view. The phrase is said to be used as a euphemism for films with adult content
the Virgin Media bill also shows the film Ocean 13 starring George Clooney was viewed on two nights at £3.75 a time plus the film Surf's Up which cost £3.50
The paper claims its revelations showed Smith was a regular user of the so-called John Lewis list, which allows MPs to claim for furniture and fittings up to the cost charged at the department store.
KHOODEELAAR! evidential note on the duplicity of the UK Channel4News site APPEARING to be rigorous about UK Interior Minister Jacqui Smith
[To be continued[
What's in Jacqui Smith's expenses?
Print this page
Last Modified: 30 Mar 2009
By: Channel 4 News
As the saga of the home secretary's second home takes another twist with the revelation that adult videos were included in her expenses, we list some of the items she claimed for.
Last month it emerged that Smith was facing a parliamentary "sleaze" investigation over her taxpayer-funded second home allowance claims.
She claimed at least £116,000 of the commons second home allowance on her constituency home in Redditch, where her family live, by designating her sister's house in south-east London as her main home.
Smith insisted she had done nothing wrong and said her accommodation arrangements were fully in line with commons rules.
But yesterday the home secretary was again in the firing line when she had to apologise for an expenses claim which included two adult films viewed at their home.
The Sunday Express said documents going back to 2001 show Smith had claimed £150,304 for the cost of running a second home since 2001, including the films.
The expenses covered council tax, utilities and insurance but also included:
a Habitat stone kitchen sink worth £550
a dining room table worth £460
a sofa bed at £704
a reclaimed antique-style fireplace costing £1,000
a £399 Hotpoint cooker plus £15 connection
a £189 Hotpoint tumble dryer
two washing machines, worth £550 over two years
home entertainment included DVD players, two Samsung widescreen TVs and two digital set-top boxes worth more than £1,100
an 88p bath plug
the bill from Virgin Media which included the two 18-rated "additional features" which cost £5 each to view. The phrase is said to be used as a euphemism for films with adult content
the Virgin Media bill also shows the film Ocean 13 starring George Clooney was viewed on two nights at £3.75 a time plus the film Surf's Up which cost £3.50
The paper claims its revelations showed Smith was a regular user of the so-called John Lewis list, which allows MPs to claim for furniture and fittings up to the cost charged at the department store.
KHOODEELAAR! evidential update on the deep accountability deficit in UK Parliament: It is a bankrupt Parliament [4]
0145 [0140] Hrs GMT London Monday 30 March 2009:
KHOODEELAAR! evidential notes on the culture of unaccountability in the UK Parliament. As we have been arguing for over 5 years, the UK Executive is liable to go off the rails. The rails and the tracks of normality. Of constitutionality. Of decency and decorum as demanded by adherence to democratic accountability.. What has Jacqui Smith’s location this week at the centre of this deeply humiliating personal embarrassment to the role she played and her fellow Blairing MPs played in giving the nod and the yes to the Big Business Crossrail hole scam Bill? What rigours would have spared Jacqui Smith this experience? We say a lot. Had there been a robust, rigorous and ethically active Parliament, most of the personal acts of embarrassment, would not have occurred. But as the UK Parliament is a propaganda place, there to promote the agenda being touted via the Executive, we have these spectacles.…. Accidentally exposed MPS and ministers found with their snouts in the trough or EVEN worse..
.[To be continued]
FROM
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/7079
State repression in Britain
Binyam Mohamed has made allegations of MI5 collusion in his torture at various detention camps, including Guantánamo Bay. The Guardian has recently exposed a police databank on thousands of protesters. A wave of repressive legislation has been introduced.
Tony Saunois looks at these and other attacks on civil liberties, and the need for all socialists and trade unionists to take up the important task of defending democratic rights.
The state, cartoon by Alan Hardman, photo Alan Hardman
Under the guise of 'fighting terrorism' and 'combating crime' New Labour has introduced an avalanche of repressive legislation. This effectively criminalises protest and takes away basic democratic rights.
Socialists understand the genuine fear of terrorism and crime felt by millions of working people and support any democratic measures that will help prevent them taking place. Yet, New Labour has introduced repressive measures which are being prepared for use against working people fighting for their rights.
The police are preparing for a "summer of rage" as the economic recession takes grip. Superintendent David Hartshorn, who heads the Metropolitan police's public order branch, warned that "middle-class individuals who would never have considered joining demonstrations may now seek to vent their anger through protests." In his comments Hartshorn specifically mentioned the G20 protests.
The threat of growing mass protest and civil disobedience has led the government and state apparatus to strengthen its repressive powers. It is polishing its arsenal of legislation against activists and protesters.
The use of legislation, justified as necessary to 'combat terrorism', is already being widely used against sections of the population. For example the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) - justified as a piece of anti-terror legislation, has been used by local authorities to monitor people suspected of fly-tipping, fishing illegally and even applying for a school place outside a designated catchment area.
These measures, introduced over the last decade and recently strengthened, are unprecedented in recent British history. Once pictured as the 'mother of democracy', Britain has now become one of the most repressive and monitored societies in the world. The government, on paper, has acquired powers giving it all the trappings of a parliamentary 'bonapartist' repressive regime.
42-day detention without trial, justified to combat terrorism, would be one of the longest detentions in the world had it been voted in. Even the existing 28-day limit outstrips that of other countries hit by terrorist attacks including Spain (five days), Turkey (seven and a half) and the USA (two days).
More laws
Police on the protests against the war in Gaza in january 2009, photo Paul Mattsson
By 2008 New Labour had created over 3,600 new offences; an average of 320 a year. Of these, 2,367 were introduced with no debate in parliament, using secondary legislation such as orders in council and statutory documents. Among them was legislation to make it illegal to disturb a pack of eggs when instructed not to by an authorised officer! It is also now illegal to create a nuclear explosion!
More ominous, though, is legislation designed to restrict democratic rights, including the right to protest. In 2005 an amendment was added to the 1997 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 4 (SOCPA) which was not debated in either chamber in parliament. This can be used to ban protests of any kind. As in Latin America, the right to protest is being criminalised.
In 1997 the Protection from Harassment Act was introduced into parliament. The government argued that it would protect women from stalkers. But this Act was used against Oxfordshire environmental campaigners. Thrupp Lake, a local beauty spot, was under threat from RWE npower, which owns Didcot power station. This company wanted to empty the lake and fill it with pulverised fly ash. Protesters launched a petition and some stood in the way of contractors who were trying to cut down trees.
Right to protest
Police on the protests against the war in Gaza in january 2009, photo Paul Mattsson
The company obtained an injunction against the protesters to keep them away from the site, with a threat of up to five years imprisonment if they broke it. Under the Protection from Harassment Act, it is only necessary to prove that someone felt "alarmed and distressed" by protesters.
Maybe this is a well-intentioned piece of legislation, badly drafted and misused? Not exactly. Mr Lawson-Cruttenden, who acted for RWE, claims that his law company helped draft the legislation in 1997. He boasted that the purpose of obtaining injunctions under the act is "the criminalisation of civil disobedience".
Although the company eventually backed down that was not the end of the struggle for the Oxfordshire protesters. The National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit (NETCU) is a police team which has been established to coordinate the fight against "domestic extremists". A NETCU manual advises officers on policing protests.
To help identify "extremist elements" police officers are recommended to check the list of "High Court Injunctions that relate to domestic extremism campaigns". This was published on the NETCU website. On the list of so-called domestic extremists was Dr Peter Harbour, a 70 year old retired physicist. He was never convicted of anything. He is on the NETCU list as a consequence of his activities to prevent Thrupp Lake from being turned into an industrial dumping ground.
Since this case was exposed by George Monbiot, NETCU has modified its website and all sections on it apart from press reports of successful prosecutions, simply state: "Site temporarily unavailable".
Even these measures are not sufficient for New Labour. Just in case an investigation by a local coroner's court starts posing difficult questions - then the Coroners and Justice Bill (2009) which is currently being drafted has the solution. It gives the government powers to suspend controversial inquests, hold them without a jury and when desired amend the Data Protection Act!
In order to carry out the monitoring and surveillance of activists and protesters the police have established new branches of the secret services which are totally unaccountable. Even the formation of these bodies has been carried through without any parliamentary debate or questioning. NETCU is one such organisation. Another is the more recently established Confidential Intelligence Unit (CIU).
Among those to be targeted, according to the Daily Mail, are: "organisations behind industrial action such as secondary picketing". It will collect data on organisations and individuals and also infiltrate targeted groups. The same article warned that the CIU will take legal action to prevent publication of material revealing its activities.
Forward Intelligence Teams (FIT) now routinely operate on all protests and demonstrations. FIT teams are charged with compiling information and taking photographs of demonstrators and those they associate with. Such information, stored on databases of course, is often passed from one demonstration to the next to allow the police to target known activists.
As well as protesters, journalists and reporters have been drawn into the net. It is now illegal to refuse or prevent the police from taking your photo on a protest. Yet since February 2009, it is illegal to take a photo of a police officer engaged in anti-terrorist activity. This makes it, in practice, illegal to photograph any police officer.
State of emergency
One of the most pernicious and authoritarian pieces of legislation was carried through parliament and received scant media coverage at the time. The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 allows for the declaration of a state of emergency and rule by decree.
For the first time, the government has the right to declare a state of emergency without even the use of the Royal Prerogative. Government ministers, including the chief whip, under this Act are empowered to declare a state of emergency providing there is "sufficient justification". Grounds for such a declaration, at regional or national level, include interruption, or threat of interruption, of the supply of money, food, water, transport, energy, communication or provision of health services as well as the threat of war or terrorist attack and of course "damage to property".
The powers that the government could assume amount to the imposition of a dictatorship and the right of ministers to issue "regulations" by decree. All of these powers can be assumed without parliamentary approval. Parliamentary ratification of such a declaration of a state of emergency need only be sought "within thirty days" and "regulations" approved after seven days.
While the right to strike and take industrial action cannot be formally removed the government would have the right to ban any assembly or protest and compel all citizens to undertake any task demanded and be moved from or to any specified location. In addition, special 'tribunals' can be established to deal with those defying government regulations. Communication by mobile phone or email can also be shut down.
While the ruling class in Britain has overseen emergency legislation before, the powers included in the Civil Contingencies Act go much further than earlier emergency legislation, such as laws introduced in 1920 and 1948.
So pernicious has New Labour become that unbelievably the House of Lords can appear as a defender of democratic rights. The House of Lords report by its constitution committee, 'Surveillance, citizens and the state', reflects the concern of a section of the ruling class that these measures will simply alienate big layers of society and undermine the ability of the ruling class to maintain stability and rule. The Lords' report warns that mass surveillance: "risks undermining the fundamental relationship between the state and citizens, which is the cornerstone of democracy and good governance".
Stella Rimington, former head of MI5, who made her career running covert operations against the miners in the 1980s, is, among other things, no friend of the working class and socialists. However, even she has opposed the latest measures on the basis that they will give justification to "terrorists" because people will live "in fear and believe they are in a police state". The 'libertarian right' in the Tory Party have taken up the cause and opposed at least some of the measures that New Labour has introduced.
Yet opposition to these repressive measures should not just be left to those sections of the ruling class and radical commentators like Henry Porter or George Monbiot. This repressive legislation is there to be used against workers and left-wing, socialist activists when the government deems it necessary. Socialists, workers and young people must oppose such existing and pending legislation.
The recent strikes by the prison officers, the postal workers and oil refinery workers have illustrated, that when faced with a determined mass movement with a combative leadership, the existing anti-strike and repressive laws cannot prevent a struggle taking place.
Defend democratic rights
But the introduction of this legislation must sound the alarm bells. There is the urgent need for a mass campaign to oppose the repressive legislation such as the Serious Organised Crime Police Act and demand the repeal of the 'anti-terror' laws such as the Regulatory Investigative Powers Act and all anti-trade union legislation. Such a campaign needs to also demand the disbandment of ACPO, the Association of Chief Police Officers (see box), the CIU and NETCU.
Socialists are not opposed to community policing to protect and defend communities. However, this can only be done through the establishment of a fully democratically controlled police service which is under the control of, and accountable to, the community. It needs to be linked to the need to build a mass party of working people, committed to fighting for democratic rights and for socialism.
CCTV - Big Brother is watching you
Like a modern day version of Big Brother in George Orwell's book 1984, New Labour's Britain has become the most 'watched' society in the world. Nobody knows exactly how many CCTV cameras are in use. The most recent estimate is somewhere between four and five million, roughly one camera for every twelve people! Each one of the population can be filmed on CCTV up to 300 times a day.
Deep underground in central London, a maze of tunnels, entered at Piccadilly Circus, lead to a central control room. This houses a bank of forty-eight plasma screens which allow operators to monitor the unsuspecting population moving about on the surface. This government-financed surveillance operation cost £1.25 million to establish and is among the most sophisticated in the world. It is regarded by the Home Office as the 'best-practice example' on which the UK's future public surveillance should be modelled.
160 fixed cameras keep an eye on population movements in Belgravia along with dozens more 'mobile' units which are fixed to walls and linked to Wi-Fi connections. 6,000 visitors from 30 different governments - including the USA, Brazil, Mexico, and China have visited the centre - regarded as a model which will be copied elsewhere.
There is no accountability or control over who uses or has access to the information collected. It is justified as helping to combat crime. Yet the evidence for CCTV effectiveness is not exactly overwhelming. A joint Home Office/police report found that 80% of the images from CCTV are of such poor quality they cannot be used for detecting crime and one police surveillance expert estimated that only 3% of crime is solved as a result of CCTV.
Data collection - "freedom is slavery"
Under New Labour, Britain has become the data capital of the world. Huge amounts of information are accumulated by the state on every aspect of the lives of millions of the population.
Staggeringly the UK DNA database is now proportionally the largest in the world with DNA profile stored on 7% of the population. This includes the DNA of over one million young people under the age of eighteen; 337,000 are under the age of sixteen.
Often, these DNA samples arise from minor crimes from which there is no prosecution but the DNA remains on the database until the individual reaches one hundred years of age. DNA records have been used in numerous cases to prevent employment or to provide a basis for dismissal.
Yet, it is not only DNA records which are being compiled. In a phrase worthy of Newspeak, the official language of Oceania in 1984, Britain now has a "transformational government" strategy. This means sharing information across all databases. It will require, according to the former chairman of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC), Sir David Varney, the state possessing "a deep truth about the citizen based on their behaviour, experiences, beliefs, needs or desires".
Former Whitehall security coordinator Sir David Omand admits that: "finding out other people's secrets is going to involve breaking everyday moral rules."
Yet while the state is free to observe our movements and listen to our conversations and discussions the New Labour government has been more reticent to open up records of its own deliberations. In Orwell's Oceania, the 'Ministry of Peace' was responsible for war. The Ministry of Truth propagated: 'War is Peace'; 'Freedom is Slavery'; and 'Ignorance is Strength'.
In New Labour's Britain, Jack Straw uses the Freedom of Information Act, not to open up government to public scrutiny but to prevent publication of the record of discussions in the Cabinet in the lead-up to the Iraq war!
ACPO - unaccountable, unelected, powerful
A large part of the police legislation is a direct result of proposals made by ACPO - the Association of Chief Police Officers. This organisation is now regularly presented in the media as 'the viewpoint' of the police and it has a major role in driving government policy.
ACPO was established in 1997 to replace an informal network of regional police chiefs. Since then it has developed into a powerful, unaccountable, unelected, organisation which acts almost like a 'state within a state'. Even the Mail on Sunday described it as: "one of the most mysterious and powerful organisations in Britain".
While formally a non-profit making private company it is in effect mutating into the high command of a national police force. It has been responsible for establishing organisations like NETCU and the CIU. Among its achievements is the distribution of 10,000 stun guns to police officers throughout the country.
Funding for ACPO 'project work' from the government increased from £1.3 million in 2005 to £15 million today. From ACPO you can purchase a "police certificate" verifying that you have no criminal record for £70 - it actually costs ACPO 60p to obtain the information from the police computer. These certificates are used for visa applications to work or live in the USA, New Zealand, Australia and Canada.
Alternatively you can go on a training programme for speed camera operators run by a senior police officer who was banned from driving for speeding!
Yet this organisation has acquired the power and influence it has without a single debate or vote in parliament.
State repression by numbers
20 - the percentage by which the proportion of the British population in prison has risen since 1997.
151 - the number of people locked up in Britain out of every 100,000. By comparison China jails 119 per 100,000 and Saudi Arabia jails 132 per 100,000.
4,842 - the increase in the number of police officers since 1997, the highest number ever.
1 - the right to demonstrate within one kilometre of parliament has been removed. You can still do it in Serbia.
In this issue:
Capitalist crisis: Make the bosses pay!
March for jobs!
Map of Youth March for Jobs route
Socialist Party editorial
Tide of job losses must be fought
Socialist Party election campaign
Rail union launches euro election challenge
An appeal from Bob Crow
No2EU Financial Appeal pdf
NO2EU Supporter appeal pdf
Socialist Party campaigns
Students need a mass fighting organisation
Credit crunch hits home
Campaign for a new workers' party
MPs - an honourable profession!
Fast News
Socialist Party feature
The uncaring care sector
Pay for your own vetting
Socialist Party marxist analysis
State repression in Britain
Keeping (illegal) tabs on us
International socialist news and analysis
France: Three million take to the streets in national strike
Canada: "Fighting back makes a difference"
Mass demo in New York against budget cuts
Scotland: International Socialists conference a big step forward
Dundee Prisme occupation: Workers remain defiant
Stop the slaughter of Tamils: London campaign meeting
Socialist Party workplace news
Nom-dom jobs slasher
New allegations hit Unison's right wing
Unison Four to face further hearings
Wales: United battle needed to stop college cuts
Fighting for justice for cleaners!
PCS Land Registry jobs and pay campaign
Workplace news in brief
KHOODEELAAR! evidential notes on the culture of unaccountability in the UK Parliament. As we have been arguing for over 5 years, the UK Executive is liable to go off the rails. The rails and the tracks of normality. Of constitutionality. Of decency and decorum as demanded by adherence to democratic accountability.. What has Jacqui Smith’s location this week at the centre of this deeply humiliating personal embarrassment to the role she played and her fellow Blairing MPs played in giving the nod and the yes to the Big Business Crossrail hole scam Bill? What rigours would have spared Jacqui Smith this experience? We say a lot. Had there been a robust, rigorous and ethically active Parliament, most of the personal acts of embarrassment, would not have occurred. But as the UK Parliament is a propaganda place, there to promote the agenda being touted via the Executive, we have these spectacles.…. Accidentally exposed MPS and ministers found with their snouts in the trough or EVEN worse..
.[To be continued]
FROM
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/7079
State repression in Britain
Binyam Mohamed has made allegations of MI5 collusion in his torture at various detention camps, including Guantánamo Bay. The Guardian has recently exposed a police databank on thousands of protesters. A wave of repressive legislation has been introduced.
Tony Saunois looks at these and other attacks on civil liberties, and the need for all socialists and trade unionists to take up the important task of defending democratic rights.
The state, cartoon by Alan Hardman, photo Alan Hardman
Under the guise of 'fighting terrorism' and 'combating crime' New Labour has introduced an avalanche of repressive legislation. This effectively criminalises protest and takes away basic democratic rights.
Socialists understand the genuine fear of terrorism and crime felt by millions of working people and support any democratic measures that will help prevent them taking place. Yet, New Labour has introduced repressive measures which are being prepared for use against working people fighting for their rights.
The police are preparing for a "summer of rage" as the economic recession takes grip. Superintendent David Hartshorn, who heads the Metropolitan police's public order branch, warned that "middle-class individuals who would never have considered joining demonstrations may now seek to vent their anger through protests." In his comments Hartshorn specifically mentioned the G20 protests.
The threat of growing mass protest and civil disobedience has led the government and state apparatus to strengthen its repressive powers. It is polishing its arsenal of legislation against activists and protesters.
The use of legislation, justified as necessary to 'combat terrorism', is already being widely used against sections of the population. For example the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) - justified as a piece of anti-terror legislation, has been used by local authorities to monitor people suspected of fly-tipping, fishing illegally and even applying for a school place outside a designated catchment area.
These measures, introduced over the last decade and recently strengthened, are unprecedented in recent British history. Once pictured as the 'mother of democracy', Britain has now become one of the most repressive and monitored societies in the world. The government, on paper, has acquired powers giving it all the trappings of a parliamentary 'bonapartist' repressive regime.
42-day detention without trial, justified to combat terrorism, would be one of the longest detentions in the world had it been voted in. Even the existing 28-day limit outstrips that of other countries hit by terrorist attacks including Spain (five days), Turkey (seven and a half) and the USA (two days).
More laws
Police on the protests against the war in Gaza in january 2009, photo Paul Mattsson
By 2008 New Labour had created over 3,600 new offences; an average of 320 a year. Of these, 2,367 were introduced with no debate in parliament, using secondary legislation such as orders in council and statutory documents. Among them was legislation to make it illegal to disturb a pack of eggs when instructed not to by an authorised officer! It is also now illegal to create a nuclear explosion!
More ominous, though, is legislation designed to restrict democratic rights, including the right to protest. In 2005 an amendment was added to the 1997 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 4 (SOCPA) which was not debated in either chamber in parliament. This can be used to ban protests of any kind. As in Latin America, the right to protest is being criminalised.
In 1997 the Protection from Harassment Act was introduced into parliament. The government argued that it would protect women from stalkers. But this Act was used against Oxfordshire environmental campaigners. Thrupp Lake, a local beauty spot, was under threat from RWE npower, which owns Didcot power station. This company wanted to empty the lake and fill it with pulverised fly ash. Protesters launched a petition and some stood in the way of contractors who were trying to cut down trees.
Right to protest
Police on the protests against the war in Gaza in january 2009, photo Paul Mattsson
The company obtained an injunction against the protesters to keep them away from the site, with a threat of up to five years imprisonment if they broke it. Under the Protection from Harassment Act, it is only necessary to prove that someone felt "alarmed and distressed" by protesters.
Maybe this is a well-intentioned piece of legislation, badly drafted and misused? Not exactly. Mr Lawson-Cruttenden, who acted for RWE, claims that his law company helped draft the legislation in 1997. He boasted that the purpose of obtaining injunctions under the act is "the criminalisation of civil disobedience".
Although the company eventually backed down that was not the end of the struggle for the Oxfordshire protesters. The National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit (NETCU) is a police team which has been established to coordinate the fight against "domestic extremists". A NETCU manual advises officers on policing protests.
To help identify "extremist elements" police officers are recommended to check the list of "High Court Injunctions that relate to domestic extremism campaigns". This was published on the NETCU website. On the list of so-called domestic extremists was Dr Peter Harbour, a 70 year old retired physicist. He was never convicted of anything. He is on the NETCU list as a consequence of his activities to prevent Thrupp Lake from being turned into an industrial dumping ground.
Since this case was exposed by George Monbiot, NETCU has modified its website and all sections on it apart from press reports of successful prosecutions, simply state: "Site temporarily unavailable".
Even these measures are not sufficient for New Labour. Just in case an investigation by a local coroner's court starts posing difficult questions - then the Coroners and Justice Bill (2009) which is currently being drafted has the solution. It gives the government powers to suspend controversial inquests, hold them without a jury and when desired amend the Data Protection Act!
In order to carry out the monitoring and surveillance of activists and protesters the police have established new branches of the secret services which are totally unaccountable. Even the formation of these bodies has been carried through without any parliamentary debate or questioning. NETCU is one such organisation. Another is the more recently established Confidential Intelligence Unit (CIU).
Among those to be targeted, according to the Daily Mail, are: "organisations behind industrial action such as secondary picketing". It will collect data on organisations and individuals and also infiltrate targeted groups. The same article warned that the CIU will take legal action to prevent publication of material revealing its activities.
Forward Intelligence Teams (FIT) now routinely operate on all protests and demonstrations. FIT teams are charged with compiling information and taking photographs of demonstrators and those they associate with. Such information, stored on databases of course, is often passed from one demonstration to the next to allow the police to target known activists.
As well as protesters, journalists and reporters have been drawn into the net. It is now illegal to refuse or prevent the police from taking your photo on a protest. Yet since February 2009, it is illegal to take a photo of a police officer engaged in anti-terrorist activity. This makes it, in practice, illegal to photograph any police officer.
State of emergency
One of the most pernicious and authoritarian pieces of legislation was carried through parliament and received scant media coverage at the time. The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 allows for the declaration of a state of emergency and rule by decree.
For the first time, the government has the right to declare a state of emergency without even the use of the Royal Prerogative. Government ministers, including the chief whip, under this Act are empowered to declare a state of emergency providing there is "sufficient justification". Grounds for such a declaration, at regional or national level, include interruption, or threat of interruption, of the supply of money, food, water, transport, energy, communication or provision of health services as well as the threat of war or terrorist attack and of course "damage to property".
The powers that the government could assume amount to the imposition of a dictatorship and the right of ministers to issue "regulations" by decree. All of these powers can be assumed without parliamentary approval. Parliamentary ratification of such a declaration of a state of emergency need only be sought "within thirty days" and "regulations" approved after seven days.
While the right to strike and take industrial action cannot be formally removed the government would have the right to ban any assembly or protest and compel all citizens to undertake any task demanded and be moved from or to any specified location. In addition, special 'tribunals' can be established to deal with those defying government regulations. Communication by mobile phone or email can also be shut down.
While the ruling class in Britain has overseen emergency legislation before, the powers included in the Civil Contingencies Act go much further than earlier emergency legislation, such as laws introduced in 1920 and 1948.
So pernicious has New Labour become that unbelievably the House of Lords can appear as a defender of democratic rights. The House of Lords report by its constitution committee, 'Surveillance, citizens and the state', reflects the concern of a section of the ruling class that these measures will simply alienate big layers of society and undermine the ability of the ruling class to maintain stability and rule. The Lords' report warns that mass surveillance: "risks undermining the fundamental relationship between the state and citizens, which is the cornerstone of democracy and good governance".
Stella Rimington, former head of MI5, who made her career running covert operations against the miners in the 1980s, is, among other things, no friend of the working class and socialists. However, even she has opposed the latest measures on the basis that they will give justification to "terrorists" because people will live "in fear and believe they are in a police state". The 'libertarian right' in the Tory Party have taken up the cause and opposed at least some of the measures that New Labour has introduced.
Yet opposition to these repressive measures should not just be left to those sections of the ruling class and radical commentators like Henry Porter or George Monbiot. This repressive legislation is there to be used against workers and left-wing, socialist activists when the government deems it necessary. Socialists, workers and young people must oppose such existing and pending legislation.
The recent strikes by the prison officers, the postal workers and oil refinery workers have illustrated, that when faced with a determined mass movement with a combative leadership, the existing anti-strike and repressive laws cannot prevent a struggle taking place.
Defend democratic rights
But the introduction of this legislation must sound the alarm bells. There is the urgent need for a mass campaign to oppose the repressive legislation such as the Serious Organised Crime Police Act and demand the repeal of the 'anti-terror' laws such as the Regulatory Investigative Powers Act and all anti-trade union legislation. Such a campaign needs to also demand the disbandment of ACPO, the Association of Chief Police Officers (see box), the CIU and NETCU.
Socialists are not opposed to community policing to protect and defend communities. However, this can only be done through the establishment of a fully democratically controlled police service which is under the control of, and accountable to, the community. It needs to be linked to the need to build a mass party of working people, committed to fighting for democratic rights and for socialism.
CCTV - Big Brother is watching you
Like a modern day version of Big Brother in George Orwell's book 1984, New Labour's Britain has become the most 'watched' society in the world. Nobody knows exactly how many CCTV cameras are in use. The most recent estimate is somewhere between four and five million, roughly one camera for every twelve people! Each one of the population can be filmed on CCTV up to 300 times a day.
Deep underground in central London, a maze of tunnels, entered at Piccadilly Circus, lead to a central control room. This houses a bank of forty-eight plasma screens which allow operators to monitor the unsuspecting population moving about on the surface. This government-financed surveillance operation cost £1.25 million to establish and is among the most sophisticated in the world. It is regarded by the Home Office as the 'best-practice example' on which the UK's future public surveillance should be modelled.
160 fixed cameras keep an eye on population movements in Belgravia along with dozens more 'mobile' units which are fixed to walls and linked to Wi-Fi connections. 6,000 visitors from 30 different governments - including the USA, Brazil, Mexico, and China have visited the centre - regarded as a model which will be copied elsewhere.
There is no accountability or control over who uses or has access to the information collected. It is justified as helping to combat crime. Yet the evidence for CCTV effectiveness is not exactly overwhelming. A joint Home Office/police report found that 80% of the images from CCTV are of such poor quality they cannot be used for detecting crime and one police surveillance expert estimated that only 3% of crime is solved as a result of CCTV.
Data collection - "freedom is slavery"
Under New Labour, Britain has become the data capital of the world. Huge amounts of information are accumulated by the state on every aspect of the lives of millions of the population.
Staggeringly the UK DNA database is now proportionally the largest in the world with DNA profile stored on 7% of the population. This includes the DNA of over one million young people under the age of eighteen; 337,000 are under the age of sixteen.
Often, these DNA samples arise from minor crimes from which there is no prosecution but the DNA remains on the database until the individual reaches one hundred years of age. DNA records have been used in numerous cases to prevent employment or to provide a basis for dismissal.
Yet, it is not only DNA records which are being compiled. In a phrase worthy of Newspeak, the official language of Oceania in 1984, Britain now has a "transformational government" strategy. This means sharing information across all databases. It will require, according to the former chairman of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC), Sir David Varney, the state possessing "a deep truth about the citizen based on their behaviour, experiences, beliefs, needs or desires".
Former Whitehall security coordinator Sir David Omand admits that: "finding out other people's secrets is going to involve breaking everyday moral rules."
Yet while the state is free to observe our movements and listen to our conversations and discussions the New Labour government has been more reticent to open up records of its own deliberations. In Orwell's Oceania, the 'Ministry of Peace' was responsible for war. The Ministry of Truth propagated: 'War is Peace'; 'Freedom is Slavery'; and 'Ignorance is Strength'.
In New Labour's Britain, Jack Straw uses the Freedom of Information Act, not to open up government to public scrutiny but to prevent publication of the record of discussions in the Cabinet in the lead-up to the Iraq war!
ACPO - unaccountable, unelected, powerful
A large part of the police legislation is a direct result of proposals made by ACPO - the Association of Chief Police Officers. This organisation is now regularly presented in the media as 'the viewpoint' of the police and it has a major role in driving government policy.
ACPO was established in 1997 to replace an informal network of regional police chiefs. Since then it has developed into a powerful, unaccountable, unelected, organisation which acts almost like a 'state within a state'. Even the Mail on Sunday described it as: "one of the most mysterious and powerful organisations in Britain".
While formally a non-profit making private company it is in effect mutating into the high command of a national police force. It has been responsible for establishing organisations like NETCU and the CIU. Among its achievements is the distribution of 10,000 stun guns to police officers throughout the country.
Funding for ACPO 'project work' from the government increased from £1.3 million in 2005 to £15 million today. From ACPO you can purchase a "police certificate" verifying that you have no criminal record for £70 - it actually costs ACPO 60p to obtain the information from the police computer. These certificates are used for visa applications to work or live in the USA, New Zealand, Australia and Canada.
Alternatively you can go on a training programme for speed camera operators run by a senior police officer who was banned from driving for speeding!
Yet this organisation has acquired the power and influence it has without a single debate or vote in parliament.
State repression by numbers
20 - the percentage by which the proportion of the British population in prison has risen since 1997.
151 - the number of people locked up in Britain out of every 100,000. By comparison China jails 119 per 100,000 and Saudi Arabia jails 132 per 100,000.
4,842 - the increase in the number of police officers since 1997, the highest number ever.
1 - the right to demonstrate within one kilometre of parliament has been removed. You can still do it in Serbia.
In this issue:
Capitalist crisis: Make the bosses pay!
March for jobs!
Map of Youth March for Jobs route
Socialist Party editorial
Tide of job losses must be fought
Socialist Party election campaign
Rail union launches euro election challenge
An appeal from Bob Crow
No2EU Financial Appeal pdf
NO2EU Supporter appeal pdf
Socialist Party campaigns
Students need a mass fighting organisation
Credit crunch hits home
Campaign for a new workers' party
MPs - an honourable profession!
Fast News
Socialist Party feature
The uncaring care sector
Pay for your own vetting
Socialist Party marxist analysis
State repression in Britain
Keeping (illegal) tabs on us
International socialist news and analysis
France: Three million take to the streets in national strike
Canada: "Fighting back makes a difference"
Mass demo in New York against budget cuts
Scotland: International Socialists conference a big step forward
Dundee Prisme occupation: Workers remain defiant
Stop the slaughter of Tamils: London campaign meeting
Socialist Party workplace news
Nom-dom jobs slasher
New allegations hit Unison's right wing
Unison Four to face further hearings
Wales: United battle needed to stop college cuts
Fighting for justice for cleaners!
PCS Land Registry jobs and pay campaign
Workplace news in brief
AADHIKARonline noting the evidence of the abuse of power by the Daily Mail's Richard Littlejohn who distorts the records to further his own ego
0100 Hrs GMT London Monday 30 March 2009
AADHIKARonline noting the evidence of the abuse of power by the Daily Mail's Richard Littlejohn who distorts the records to further his own ego
[To be continued]
Not even in the Augean sleaze of the Major years did we have a Home Secretary claiming porn on expenses
By RICHARD LITTLEJOHN
Last updated at 11:04 PM on 29th March 2009
Comments (0)
Add to My Stories
So now we know how Jacqui Smith's husband amuses himself while she's snuggled up in her sister's spare bedroom in South London.
Back at the family's 'second' home in her Redditch constituency, Richard Timney likes to relax in a gentleman's way in front of porno movies - which are then charged to the taxpayer as part of her parliamentary expenses.
When I christened the Home Secretary 'Jackboot Jacqui' I had no idea that her husband was into that kind of thing.
Clinging on: If Jacqui Smith loses her seat, it will have a lot to do with her husband's porn-viewing habits
This flagrant abuse has come to light after it was revealed that Smith claimed £67 for a cable television subscription - including access to the Playboy Channel, the Adult Channel and Television X, listed euphemistically as 'additional services' to spare the subscriber's blushes.
Purely in the interests of research, you understand, I visited the Television X website to check out the schedule.
In alphabetical order, it starts with 'Anal Boutique' and goes downhill from there. Suffice it to say, the line-up specialises in what we in the trade call 'acts too disgusting to be described in a family newspaper'.
Now, there is a charitable argument that any man married to a 'Blair Babe' should be entitled to pornography as a basis for negotiation. But whether the British taxpayer should have to pay for it is another matter altogether.
Jackboots says she knew nothing about the porn channels, which were wrapped up in her internet account. The BBC, quick to leap to her defence, assures us she has given her husband a 'good earbashing' (which I believe can be found under 'E' on the Television X website and costs £4.95 for the full half-hour).
More from Richard Littlejohn...
RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: What on earth is Gordon Brown doing in Brazil?26/03/09
We don't need another whitewash inquiry, this is a matter for the police 23/03/09
LITTLEJOHN: This is the BBC Home Service. Keep calm, carry on and don't panic, D-Day is cancelled19/03/09
RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Share her pain? No, this woman doesn't deserve a penny16/03/09
RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Put these Toytown Talibandits on the first flight home12/03/09
RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Celebrate gay history. P-p-pick up a penguin09/03/09
RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Coming up after on ITV - Dancing On Thin Ice05/03/09
RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Fred the Shred, found guilty by the court of public opinion 02/03/09
VIEW FULL ARCHIVE
She may not have known, but he certainly did. And Timney is not some na've house-husband, idling away the lonely nights while high-flying wifey is keeping the world safe from international terrorism.
Timney is a full-time politician, paid £40,000 out of the public purse to be Smith's adviser - in which capacity he has been known to write to their local paper singing her praises, while not actually mentioning that he's married to her.
He will have been well aware what 'services' were being claimed on her expenses - he filled them in. Maybe he genuinely believed that claiming for dirty movies was legitimate. After all, if Gordon Brown can claim for his Sky Sports and Sky Movies subscription, it's only a short stretch to the Playboy Channel.
In any event, Jacqui Smith signed the expenses claim. Even if it was an 'oversight' she put her name to it and she accepted the money. Are we to believe that the Home Secretary is so slapdash she signs anything shoved in front of her, without bothering to read it?
Actually, yes, seeing as half the time she appears to have no idea what is going on in her department.
In the scheme of things, a few quid for some filthy films is a mere bagatelle when viewed in the context of the £100,000 Smith fraudulently claims from the taxpayer by pretending that her sister's box room in Southwark is her 'main' home.
As I have pointed out since this scandal broke, the Home Secretary has a perfectly serviceable grace-and-favour house in Belgravia at her disposal. It's a short, chauffeur-driven hop from her department and, befitting the holder of one of the four great offices of state, is a great deal smarter than a scruffy terrace in South London, which from the outside looks one step up from a squat.
More...
Porn shame of Mr Jacqui Smith: Will their marriage survive this latest controversy?
Humiliation of a minister: Jacqui Smith 'could face axe' after claiming taxpayers' cash for husband's pornographic films
MAIL COMMENT: Bare-faced fraud that taints every MP
But if she lived rent-free in Belgravia, she wouldn't be able to fiddle her expenses. Listing her sister's address as her 'main' residence means she has been able to lavish a small fortune on her real family home in Redditch, all courtesy of the mug taxpayer.
She's even claimed for the kitchen sink - a £550 stone job. You couldn't make it up.
The Home Secretary, above all, must realise that ignorance is no defence. Even if she didn't know what her husband was slipping through on her expenses, she should have done. It may not have been her fault, but it was her responsibility.
At this stage, it is customary to say that if she had a shred of decency she would resign. But if she had a shred of decency she would have resigned when it was revealed that she was lying about her 'main' home in order to claim £100,000 of public money to which she is not entitled.
Smith will probably cling on, for now. But when she's voted out by the people of Redditch it will be her husband's dirty movies which do for her, not the far greater 'second home' swindle, just as it was the income tax evasion not the murder which claimed Al Capone.
It won't be enough for her to protest that they're all at it, even though they are - as became increasingly apparent over the weekend.
While these latest home truths about the Home Secretary's expenses dominated the headlines, there were fresh revelations about the creative accounting methods of employment minister Tony McNulty and Left-wing MP Harry Cohen.
It now appears that, as I have maintained all along, McNulty has committed a criminal offence in claiming allowances for his parents' home in Harrow.
And it has been revealed that Cohen, MP for Ilford, Essex, claims his 'main' home is a single-bedroom cottage and seaside caravan 70 miles from his constituency.
Cohen has received a staggering £310,000 in 'second' home allowances since he was elected. But he remains quite brazen about it all, claiming that when he entered parliament, MPs were encouraged to fill their boots.
This is how it always ends, in a torrent of sleaze. With Labour mired in corruption and Gordon's mini-me Nigel Griffiths caught having sex in the Commons with a stockinged slapper, we can almost look back on the final days of Johnny Major as a golden age of probity and propriety.
Not even in the Augean squalor of Major's government did we have a Home Secretary claiming pornography on expenses.
The Smith-Timneys epitomise the kind of institutionally-corrupt, smug New Labour entitlement junkies who believe that the taxpayer should pick up the entire bill for their work, rest and play - even if that includes hard-core porn.
Richard Timney has been wheeled out for a ritual apology, but it's too late. We can only imagine Jackboots's reaction when she got the phone call informing her what the cat got up to when the mouse was away.
And you know what? Next time she claims that her sister's spare room is her 'main' home, she might just be telling the truth for once.
Print this article Read later Email to a friend
Share this article:
Digg itDel.icio.usRedditNewsvineNowpublicStumbleUponFacebookMySpaceFark
Add your comments Comments (0)
No comments have so far been submitted. Why not be the first to send us your thoughts?
Add your comment
Name:
Email:
Your email address will not be published
Town & Country:
Your comments:
Make text area bigger You have 1000 characters left.
AADHIKARonline noting the evidence of the abuse of power by the Daily Mail's Richard Littlejohn who distorts the records to further his own ego
[To be continued]
Not even in the Augean sleaze of the Major years did we have a Home Secretary claiming porn on expenses
By RICHARD LITTLEJOHN
Last updated at 11:04 PM on 29th March 2009
Comments (0)
Add to My Stories
So now we know how Jacqui Smith's husband amuses himself while she's snuggled up in her sister's spare bedroom in South London.
Back at the family's 'second' home in her Redditch constituency, Richard Timney likes to relax in a gentleman's way in front of porno movies - which are then charged to the taxpayer as part of her parliamentary expenses.
When I christened the Home Secretary 'Jackboot Jacqui' I had no idea that her husband was into that kind of thing.
Clinging on: If Jacqui Smith loses her seat, it will have a lot to do with her husband's porn-viewing habits
This flagrant abuse has come to light after it was revealed that Smith claimed £67 for a cable television subscription - including access to the Playboy Channel, the Adult Channel and Television X, listed euphemistically as 'additional services' to spare the subscriber's blushes.
Purely in the interests of research, you understand, I visited the Television X website to check out the schedule.
In alphabetical order, it starts with 'Anal Boutique' and goes downhill from there. Suffice it to say, the line-up specialises in what we in the trade call 'acts too disgusting to be described in a family newspaper'.
Now, there is a charitable argument that any man married to a 'Blair Babe' should be entitled to pornography as a basis for negotiation. But whether the British taxpayer should have to pay for it is another matter altogether.
Jackboots says she knew nothing about the porn channels, which were wrapped up in her internet account. The BBC, quick to leap to her defence, assures us she has given her husband a 'good earbashing' (which I believe can be found under 'E' on the Television X website and costs £4.95 for the full half-hour).
More from Richard Littlejohn...
RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: What on earth is Gordon Brown doing in Brazil?26/03/09
We don't need another whitewash inquiry, this is a matter for the police 23/03/09
LITTLEJOHN: This is the BBC Home Service. Keep calm, carry on and don't panic, D-Day is cancelled19/03/09
RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Share her pain? No, this woman doesn't deserve a penny16/03/09
RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Put these Toytown Talibandits on the first flight home12/03/09
RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Celebrate gay history. P-p-pick up a penguin09/03/09
RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Coming up after on ITV - Dancing On Thin Ice05/03/09
RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Fred the Shred, found guilty by the court of public opinion 02/03/09
VIEW FULL ARCHIVE
She may not have known, but he certainly did. And Timney is not some na've house-husband, idling away the lonely nights while high-flying wifey is keeping the world safe from international terrorism.
Timney is a full-time politician, paid £40,000 out of the public purse to be Smith's adviser - in which capacity he has been known to write to their local paper singing her praises, while not actually mentioning that he's married to her.
He will have been well aware what 'services' were being claimed on her expenses - he filled them in. Maybe he genuinely believed that claiming for dirty movies was legitimate. After all, if Gordon Brown can claim for his Sky Sports and Sky Movies subscription, it's only a short stretch to the Playboy Channel.
In any event, Jacqui Smith signed the expenses claim. Even if it was an 'oversight' she put her name to it and she accepted the money. Are we to believe that the Home Secretary is so slapdash she signs anything shoved in front of her, without bothering to read it?
Actually, yes, seeing as half the time she appears to have no idea what is going on in her department.
In the scheme of things, a few quid for some filthy films is a mere bagatelle when viewed in the context of the £100,000 Smith fraudulently claims from the taxpayer by pretending that her sister's box room in Southwark is her 'main' home.
As I have pointed out since this scandal broke, the Home Secretary has a perfectly serviceable grace-and-favour house in Belgravia at her disposal. It's a short, chauffeur-driven hop from her department and, befitting the holder of one of the four great offices of state, is a great deal smarter than a scruffy terrace in South London, which from the outside looks one step up from a squat.
More...
Porn shame of Mr Jacqui Smith: Will their marriage survive this latest controversy?
Humiliation of a minister: Jacqui Smith 'could face axe' after claiming taxpayers' cash for husband's pornographic films
MAIL COMMENT: Bare-faced fraud that taints every MP
But if she lived rent-free in Belgravia, she wouldn't be able to fiddle her expenses. Listing her sister's address as her 'main' residence means she has been able to lavish a small fortune on her real family home in Redditch, all courtesy of the mug taxpayer.
She's even claimed for the kitchen sink - a £550 stone job. You couldn't make it up.
The Home Secretary, above all, must realise that ignorance is no defence. Even if she didn't know what her husband was slipping through on her expenses, she should have done. It may not have been her fault, but it was her responsibility.
At this stage, it is customary to say that if she had a shred of decency she would resign. But if she had a shred of decency she would have resigned when it was revealed that she was lying about her 'main' home in order to claim £100,000 of public money to which she is not entitled.
Smith will probably cling on, for now. But when she's voted out by the people of Redditch it will be her husband's dirty movies which do for her, not the far greater 'second home' swindle, just as it was the income tax evasion not the murder which claimed Al Capone.
It won't be enough for her to protest that they're all at it, even though they are - as became increasingly apparent over the weekend.
While these latest home truths about the Home Secretary's expenses dominated the headlines, there were fresh revelations about the creative accounting methods of employment minister Tony McNulty and Left-wing MP Harry Cohen.
It now appears that, as I have maintained all along, McNulty has committed a criminal offence in claiming allowances for his parents' home in Harrow.
And it has been revealed that Cohen, MP for Ilford, Essex, claims his 'main' home is a single-bedroom cottage and seaside caravan 70 miles from his constituency.
Cohen has received a staggering £310,000 in 'second' home allowances since he was elected. But he remains quite brazen about it all, claiming that when he entered parliament, MPs were encouraged to fill their boots.
This is how it always ends, in a torrent of sleaze. With Labour mired in corruption and Gordon's mini-me Nigel Griffiths caught having sex in the Commons with a stockinged slapper, we can almost look back on the final days of Johnny Major as a golden age of probity and propriety.
Not even in the Augean squalor of Major's government did we have a Home Secretary claiming pornography on expenses.
The Smith-Timneys epitomise the kind of institutionally-corrupt, smug New Labour entitlement junkies who believe that the taxpayer should pick up the entire bill for their work, rest and play - even if that includes hard-core porn.
Richard Timney has been wheeled out for a ritual apology, but it's too late. We can only imagine Jackboots's reaction when she got the phone call informing her what the cat got up to when the mouse was away.
And you know what? Next time she claims that her sister's spare room is her 'main' home, she might just be telling the truth for once.
Print this article Read later Email to a friend
Share this article:
Digg itDel.icio.usRedditNewsvineNowpublicStumbleUponFacebookMySpaceFark
Add your comments Comments (0)
No comments have so far been submitted. Why not be the first to send us your thoughts?
Add your comment
Name:
Email:
Your email address will not be published
Town & Country:
Your comments:
Make text area bigger You have 1000 characters left.