Alan Lodge's Blog

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is currently assisting Indymedia

http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2004_10.php#001989

United Kingdom – Acting under a court order, Texas-based web hosting company Rackspace Managed Hosting handed over two UK-based servers containing Indymedia websites to government agents yesterday morning. Indymedia is a collective of online journalists who maintain a network of independent news websites. The order was apparently issued by a US District Court and served by the FBI, on behalf of a foreign government. Rackspace has refused to comment on what information had been requested or why the servers were confiscated, citing the court order.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is currently assisting Indymedia investigate possible responses to the seizure of its information. More than 20 Indymedia-related websites, along with Indymedia’s online radio, were hosted on the servers, which were dedicated machines provided by Rackspace.

“This seizure has grave implications for free speech and privacy. The Constitution does not permit the government unilaterally to cut off the speech of an independent media outlet, especially without providing a reason or even allowing Indymedia the information necessary to contest the seizure,” said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl.

Rackspace contends that a court order prevents them from providing a copy of the subpoena, confirming which court issued the order, or the government agency who served the subpoena.

Contacts:

Kurt Opsahl

Staff Attorney

Electronic Frontier Foundation

kurt@eff.org

Devin T. Theriot-Orr

Edwards Sieh Smith & Goodfriend

devin@essglaw.com

Mobile (206)498-9440

the law lords have set a dangerous precedent by backing the demands of the state over individual privacy

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2004/sep/03uk-dna-database.htm

The highest court in the land, in the House of Lords, ruled on 22 July that DNA samples taken from people who are not charged with an offence or who are acquitted can still be held indefinitely by police.

The court was hearing two test cases. The first by a boy from Sheffield who was 11 years old when he was arrested for attempted burglary in 2001. His lawyers asked for his fingerprints and DNA samples to be destroyed after his acquittal. The second case involved a man from Sheffield who gave a DNA sample when he was charged with harassing his partner – the case never came to court as the couple came together again and the woman decided not to press charges.He asked the South Yorkshire police to destroy the sample and fingerprints.

Peter Mahy, the solicitor representing the two people, said he was surprised that four of the five law lords found no breach of privacy (under Article 8.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights). He said that his clients hope to challenge the judgement in the European Court of Human Rights.

In July the UK Forensic Science Service announced that the number of DNA profiles on the national database had reach two million.

A history of non-compliance by police leads to changes in law

* * * * * *

Before looking at the judgement in this case it is worth taking a look at the history of police powers to take and retain DNA samples.

Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) police could take body samples (DNA from mouth swabs) where people were suspected of having committed a “serious arrestable offence”. The same law stipulated, in PACE, Section 64, that DNA samples taken from a “person who is not suspected of having committed an offence or is not prosecuted or is acquitted of the of the offence, the sample must be destroyed” and “cannot be used in evidence against that person or for the purposes of any investigation of an offence”.

The first change to the law on DNA came in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 which removed the test of “serious arrestable offence” for the taking of samples without consent. Instead samples could be taken from; i) those “in police detention or held in custody” if there were “reasonable grounds for suspecting involvement of that person in a recordable offence” (a much lower standard); ii) any person charged with a recordable offence; and iii) any person convicted of a recordable offence.

Although the scope of the law was widened in 1994 it was still based on the simple proposition that if a person was innocent – never charged or found not guilty of charges brought against them then fingerprints and DNA samples taken should be destroyed.

The next change came in 2001 when the Criminal Justice and Police Act amended Section 64 of PACE to allow fingerprints and DNA samples to be retained indefinitely where they “were taken from a person in connection with the investigation of an offence”.

This change was prompted because it transpired that many police forces were not complying with the law as it stood by failing to destroy the fingerprints and DNA samples of those not charged with any offence or who were acquitted.

In the run-up to the new Act the Prime Minister, Tony Blair said: “I believe the civil liberties argument is completely misplaced. This is using technology to catch criminals” (31.8.00).

However, according to a report prepared for Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary (HMIC) published in July 2000, “Under the Microscope”, “urgent action” was needed to remove from the national database those who had been arrested but not charged and those who were subsequently acquitted. The report estimated that: “perhaps as many as 50,000 may be being held on the database when they should have been taken off”. This estimate was based on a 20% non-conviction rate but the report then admitted that in reality the figure “falling within ACPO’s CJ sampling guidelines” was “over 45% not convicted” and the overall figure for those charged but not convicted for all offences was 33%. The true figure for the number of DNA samples which should have been removed was therefore not 50,000 but somewhere between 82,500 and 112,500 (evidence presented to the appeal in this current case suggested that between 128,517 and 162,433 DNA profiles are now being held where the parent PNC record has been deleted).

Under Home Office Circular no 16/95 and the Data Protection Act 1998 police forces were required to notify the National DNA Database (NDNAD) of all acquittals and “discontinuances” (where no charge is made). The report concluded that in the short term forces should comply with the law – which they never did – and that:

“perhaps the time has come to revisit the legislation to consider whether all samples.. should be retained on the NDNAD to provide a useful source of intelligence to aid future investigations.”

The government acted to remove this embarrassing situation through the changes in Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 by amending Section 64 of PACE. Where the scope for taking DNA was widened in 1994 the retention of all DNA samples from those innocent of any offence was made lawful in 2001.

The judgement by the “Lords of Appeal”

* * * * * *

The appeal heard in the House of Lords on 22 July was based on the contravention of Articles 8.1 and 14 (discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights by retaining fingerprints and DNA samples.

Article 8: Right to respect for private and family says:

“8.1: Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence

8.2: There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

The main reasons for dismissing the appeal were given by Lord Steyn who opened by saying that:

“It is of paramount importance that law enforcement agencies should take full advantage of the available techniques of modern technology and forensic science… It enables the guilty to be detected and the innocent to be rapidly eliminated from enquiries… Making due allowance for the possibility of threats to civil liberties, this phenomenon has had beneficial effects”

In the Court of Appeal prior to this judgement Liberty had argued that DNA samples “potentially contain very much greater, more personal and detailed information about an individual” such as latent genetic illness or behavioural tendencies. In Lord Steyn’s view this was not relevant as DNA was only used for criminal investigations with “rigorous safeguards” and that “the trial process ought to weed out such abuses” feared by Liberty.

Lord Steyn cites forensic expert Dr Bramley who gave evidence that the prevention and detection of crime is:

“not interpreted so widely as to allow general testing of the retained CJ scrapes (criminal justice) for medical conditions or susceptibilities and linking the results to a specific known individual”

While this is clearly the official police position on the use of forensics it might be asked in current climate of security fears whether in other circumstances the security and intelligence agencies have access to DNA profiles and whether they use them for different purposes?

Lord Steyn concludes that Article 8.1 of the ECHR is “not engaged” and:

“If I am wrong in this view, I would say any interference is very modest indeed”

When considering the legislation he concludes that:

“It is true that the taking of fingerprints and samples involves an interference with the individual’s private life within the meaning of article 8(1) of ECHR. On the other hand, such interference for the limited statutory purposes is plainly objectively justified under article 8(2)”

In the previous decision by the Court of Appeal Lord Justice Sedley argued that:

“The power of a Chief Constable to destroy data which he would ordinarily retain must in my judgement be exercised in every case, however rare such cases may be, whether he or she is satisfied on conscientious consideration that the individual is free from any taint of suspicion”

Lord Steyn rejected this idea of a case by case evaluation as it would counter:

“the benefits of a greatly extended database and would involve the police in interminable and invidious disputes (subject to judicial review of individuals decisions) about offences of which the individual has been acquitted”

and he cites the contrary opinion of Lord Justice Waller in the same Court of Appeal who said that for DNA to be retained in no way stigmatises the individual as it is:

“simply that samples lawfully obtained are retained as the norm, and it is in the public interest in its fight against crime for the police to have as large a database as possible”

The appeal against discrimination, under Article 14, was also dismissed by the law lords. Here Lord Steyn cites Lord Justice Sedley approvingly where he says that:

“The line between those unconvicted people who have faced charges and those who have not, while not a bright line, is not arbitrarily drawn. It does not tarnish the innocence of the unconvicted in the eye of the law. But it recognises that among them is an indeterminate number who are likelier than the rest of the unconvicted population to offend in the future or to be found to have offended in the past.”

The validity of this assertion is open to question, namely, that innocent people who come into contact with the criminal justice system are more likely to offend that the rest of the population and it is therefore legitimate to keep their DNA on file as a “suspect” group.

The other law lords sitting on the case gave their views too. Lord Rodger doubted whether there was a “greater cultural resistance in Britain than in other European countries to the collection and retention of data about individuals”. However, he observed that:

“it may well be that, with their bitter experience of life under totalitarian regimes, people in some other European countries would nowadays be more concerned than people here about official files on individuals”

However, it might be observed that the reason people in central and eastern European countries would be “concerned” is that:

“Privacy is one of the basic values of human life and personal data is the main gateway enabling entry into it. The citizens of countries that experienced a period of totalitarian regimes have that a hard experience – when privacy was not considered of value and was sacrificed to the interest of the state” (Hana Stepankova, Czech Office for Personal Data Protection, 11.12.03)

And as the Canadian Privacy Commissioner, cited by Baroness Hale (below), says:

“The measure of our privacy is the degree of control we exercise over what others know about us”

Baroness Hale dissented from Lord Steyn’s view arguing that the “retention and storage of fingerprints, DNA profiles and samples” was an interference with Article 8.1. However, she concludes that this is overridden by Article 8.2:

“The whole community, as well as the individual whose samples are collected, benefit from there being as large a database as it is possible to have”

While Lord Brown said that:

“I find it difficult why anyone should object to the retention of their profile (and sample) on the database once it has been lawfully placed there”

The objections to this he found “entirely chimerical” (meaning a “fanciful conception” according to the Oxford dictionary) for example, the:

“fear of an Orwellian future, in which retained samples will be re-analysed by a mischievous State in the light of scientific advances and the results improperly used against the person’s interest”

and he goes on to say:

“no such abuse is presently threatened and if and when it comes to be them will be the time to address it. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof”

and he goes on:

“it seems to me that the benefits of the larger database… are so manifest and the objections to it so threadbare that the cause of human rights generally… would inevitably be better served by the databases’s expansion than its proposed contraction. The more complete the database, the better chance of detecting criminals, both those guilty of crimes past and those whose crimes are yet to be committed. The better chance too of deterring from future crime those whose profiles are already on the database”

Slide into authoritarianism?

* * * * * *

Tony Bunyan, Statewatch editor, comments:

“This is a classic instance of the slide into authoritarianism where the privacy of the individual is subsumed, allegedly in the “interests of all”, to the demands of the state. When the privacy of the individual is weighed against the interests of the state all five law lords come down on the side of the latter. Thus all want as large a DNA database as possible which, by extension, would be best served by covering the whole population.

Their lordships do not address the implications of their decision on the planned, “blanket” and compulsory, collection of biometric data for ID cards, passports and driving licences.

This case demonstrates the fundamental shortcoming of the law in protecting liberties and privacy. Providing data is “lawfully” collected there can be no objection whatsoever – but what if the laws themselves are contrary to the standards of a democratic society? What if the cumulative collection of personal data is such that democracy slides into authoritarianism and authoritarianism into totalitarianism?”

Sources: Guardian, 1 & 2.9.00; Independent, 1.9.00; “Under the Microscope”, report for Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary, July 2000; Lords of Appeal, 22.7.04; Forsensic Science Service, July 2004; Daily Telegraph, 23.7.04. This “Viewpoint” first appeared in Statewatch bulletin, vol 14 no 3/4. Filed 5.9.04.

See also: UK: “Sleepwalking into a surveillance society?” – Information Commissioner

ID Cards: Information Commissioner takes a blast at proposals

http://tash_lodge.blogspot.com/2004_08_15_tash_lodge_archive.html#109264894794420538

&

Information Commissioner on ID Cards, and Government Data, generally.

“Sleepwalking into a surveillance society?” – Information Commissioner

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2004/aug/08uk-info-commissioner.htm

Watching out: A need for balance as Whitehall seeks more information http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,542-1218045,00.html

Further, check out earlier entry on Monday, August 16, 2004 at:

http://tash_lodge.blogspot.com/2004_08_15_tash_lodge_archive.html#109264894794420538

and at:

http://tash_lodge.blogspot.com/2004_06_27_tash_lodge_archive.html#108854890794752745

when I’d volunteered for the ID card trial.

http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/10/298741.html

On Thursday morning, US authorities issued a federal order to Rackspace ordering them to hand over Indymedia web servers to the requesting agency. Rackspace, which provides hosting services for more that 20 Indymedia sites at its London facility, complied and turned over the requested servers, effectively removing those sites from the internet.

Since the subpoena was issued to Rackspace and not to Indymedia, the reasons for this action are still unknown to Indymedia. Talking to Indymedia volunteers, Rackspace stated that “they cannot provide Indymedia with any information regarding the order.” ISPs have received gag orders in similar situations which prevent them from updating the concerned parties on what is happening.

It is unclear to Indymedia how and why a server that is outside the US jurisdiction can be seized by US authorities.

At the same time an additional server was taken down at Rackspace which provided streaming radio to several radio stations including one covering the European Social Forum in London, BLAG (linux distro), and a handful of miscellanous things.

The list of affected local media collectives includes Ambazonia, Uruguay, Andorra, Poland, Western Massachusetts, Nice, Nantes, Lilles, Marseille (all France), Euskal Herria (Basque Country), Liege, East and West Vlaanderen, Antwerpen (all Belgium), Belgrade, Portugal, Prague, Galiza, Italy, Brazil, UK, part of the Germany site, and the global Indymedia Radio site.

It is ironic that that this happens now, just days before Indymedia is due to participate in the European Forum on Communications Rights being held alongside the European Social Forum and several other days of discussions about electronic civil liberties and community media. For more information on these events see www.efcr2004.net

The last few months have seen numerous attacks on independent media by the US Federal Government. In August the Secret Service used a subpoena in an attempt to disrupt the NYC IMC before the RNC by trying to get IP logs from an ISP in the US and the Netherlands. Last month the FCC shut down community radio stations around the US. Two weeks ago the FBI requested that Indymedia takes down a post on the Nantes IMC that had a photo of some undercover Swiss police and IMC volunteers in Seattle were visited by the FBI on the same issue. On the other hand, Indymedia and other independent media organisations were successfull with their victories for example against Diebold and the Patroit Act. Today however, the US authorities shut down IMCs around the world.

* * * * * *

‘More Intimidation Than Crime-Busting’ Says IFJ As Police Target Independent Media Network

http://www.ifj.org/default.asp?Index=2734&Language=EN

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), the global organisation representing over 500,000 journalists worldwide, today called for an investigation into the action by police in Britain in co-operation with other agencies that led to the temporary closure

of 21 of the more than 140 Indymedia web sites worldwide.

“We have witnessed an intolerable and intrusive international police operation against a network specialising in independent journalism,” said Aidan White IFJ General Secretary. “The way this has been done smacks more of intimidation of legitimate journalistic inquiry than crime-busting.”

The IFJ believes that the authorities may have abused their powers in carrying out the action, which is said to have been carried out at the request of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States.

Yesterday police seized two web server computers in London used by the Indymedia network. The servers were located on the premises of the Rackspace company, which is now not giving out any information.

Initial reports suggested FBI officers themselves had seized the servers. The seizure follows visits by the FBI to Indymedia personnel in the US inquiring about the publication on the French site Indymedia Nantes of photographs of Swiss undercover police photographing protestors. The photographs remain available on other websites.

Indymedia sites, which provide challenging and independent reporting, particularly of political and social justice issues, are open forums where any member of the public can publish their comments.

The IFJ believes the seizure may be linked to a September 30 court case in San Jose California, in which Indymedia San Francisco and two students at Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania successfully opposed an application by Diebold Election Systems Inc to remove documents claiming to reveal flaws in the design of electronic voting machines which are due to be used widely in the forthcoming US Presidential election.

Although Indymedia UK was back in operation within hours, several of the other 20 sites affected remain silenced today.

“The seizing of computers and the high profile nature of this incident suggests that someone wanted to stifle these independent voices in journalism,” said Aidan White. “We need a full investigation into why this action took place, who took part and who authorised it.”

For further information: +32 2 235 22 07

The IFJ represents over 500,000 journalists in more than 100 countries

* * * * * *

To follow, some of the correspondance, relating to all this, cheak out the blog engry at:

http://jebba.blagblagblag.org/index.php?p=107

[ from v interesting blog at: http://jebba.blagblagblag.org]

Weds 13 – Sat 16 October 2004

inna London squat venue. phone on the day for info: 07050 614 804

http://www.randomartists.org

The whole event is open-access and you are invited to take part. Please get

in touch if you would like to contribute.

t: 07092 012 299

e: info@randomartists.org

This event is coinciding with the European Social Forum (ESF) which is being

held in London over the same week. Although we support the ESF our event is

being run in conjunction with several other autonomous spaces who do not

have, nor represent one single unified position on the ESF.

More Info on ESF and the autonomous spaces opening up during the week

www.altspaces.net

www.esf2004.net – unofficial ESF site

www.fse-esf.org – official ESF site

For contributers, check out:

http://www.randomartists.org/linkspage.htm

SchNEWS was born out of the movement against Michael Howard’s Criminal Justice Act of 1994, an act that sought to criminalise everyone from travellers to free partygoers to those doing direct action. It has become an internationally respected newsletter of the anti-capitalist movement providing information for action to activists across the world. It is free and is written entirely by volunteers, funded by donation.

SCHNEWS AT TEN – THE BOOK…

will cover ten years of direct action against capitalism. From the resistance to the CJA and the big anti-roads protest camps thru to Seattle and the anti-capitalism movement, and then the anti-war movement, SchNEWS was there. This book is information for action – it’s about inspiring further direct action with amazing stories from the past decade, as opposed to being some worthy new addition to yer bookshelf – it’s the story of these battles form the inside. Often funny, sometimes deeply moving, this is the story of a decade of struggles of ordinary people fighting to save our planet from capitalism’s desire to destroy it.

http://www.schnews.org.uk/at10/index.htm#book

The Government is proposing yet another extension of the law which will affect the right to dissent and protest – Modernising Police Powers to Meet Community Needs. As the Guardian article below says, the proposals ‘are extraordinary in (its) scope’. It is expected to be included in the Queen’s Speech in November and has a short consultation period with ends next Friday 8th October.

The proposals affecting dissent and protest include a ‘super warrant’ allowing the police to search any property associated with an individual, allowing police to arrest people for all offences, a new offence of harassment aimed at stopping protest outside people’s homes, banning or controlling protest outside Parliament, extending the use of DNA and other identification techniques.

The idea of banning/controlling all protest near parliament is a response to Brian Haw’s protest of over 3 years opposite Parliament. Various authorities have tried different ways of getting rid of him but

haven’t been able to do it legally in a way which he has not successfully challenged. While a number of MPs have spoken out in parliament against this kind of new legislation it may be that, on the back of the Countryside Alliance protests, the idea of banning or controlling protest outside Parliament will gain momentum and be seen as acceptable for security reasons.

To download the document from the Home Office website, see:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs3/modernising_powers.html

The closing date for responses to the consultation is 8 October 2004

Responses can be emailed to: Alan.Brown@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

Or addressed in writing to:

Alan Brown

Police Leadership and Powers Unit

2nd Floor Allington Towers

19 Allington Street

London SW1E 5EB

* * * * * *

This is about politics, not policing

Crime is at a record low, so why does Labour talk of crackdowns?

John Kampfner

Friday August 13, 2004

The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1282125,00.html

When a government floats changes to the criminal justice system, look for the context as much as the content. The political parties are using the summer to test-run ideas ahead of a frenetic election year. There can be no other reason why David Blunkett has, two days after a speech from Michael Howard, decided to unveil another pot-pourri of ideas in the never-ending “battle” against crime.

The consultation document, Modernising Police Powers to Meet Community Needs, is extraordinary in its scope. It ranges from allowing police to arrest people for all offences, extending the use of DNA, giving community support officers (CSOs) more powers, potentially banning all protest near parliament, making search warrants apply to every home of a suspect, and making it harder for animal rights protesters to harass scientists – all this in one bill coming our way in the Queen’s speech in November. Why else would ministers have set the consultation period at exactly eight weeks, if not to give them just enough time to frame the outlines of legislation for the next parliamentary session?

The issue for the government is to prove that these measures are needed, that as ever on this issue, the benefits – reduction in crime – outweigh the human rights ramifications. The issue for civil libertarians is the reverse. For the moment both sides have only broad principles to go on.

Ministers said yesterday that the idea of making all offences arrestable, including dropping litter, was nothing more than a tidying-up exercise. This might seem strange given that the police were not bothered by the situation as it stood. Until now, officers could arrest a suspect only if the offence was punishable by a prison term of five years or more, if it had been listed as an exception to that rule (such as kerb crawling), or if the officer believed a breach of the peace had been committed. Offences that do not fall into this category include impersonation of a police officer, failure to heed an order to hand in a passport, unauthorised access to obscene computer material, or the sale of a weapon.

Hazel Blears, Blunkett’s deputy, suggested that officers would have to prove a “necessity test” before making arrests. She also claimed the reforms were not designed to increase the number of arrests, but merely to make the process simpler. Maybe she is right. Everyone knows that if a policeman wants to arrest you, he will find a reason, and breach of the peace has always done the job. But is that enough reason to legislate again?

As for the other proposals, CSOs are beginning to perform a useful function as a cheap substitute for police, so giving them more powers might be helpful. But should they be allowed to operate in plain clothes? Surely the whole idea was to reassure the public of an official presence on the streets. Then there is the “super warrant”, allowing police to search any property a suspect is deemed to be associated with. Perhaps that is needed in limited cases, but does the home of the mother-in-law where the suspect kipped for a few nights fall into that category? In the case of drug dealers, should the refusal to submit to a strip search be admissible in court?

Perhaps the most worrying item is the idea of banning all demonstrations outside the Palace of Westminster. We know why the government wants to do it. Labour MPs have complained about the ever-present protest against the Iraq war opposite the Commons, where their cars sweep in. These people do not pose a security threat. The police have checked them enough times to know.

The detail of the changes will emerge only after the two-month consultation. But the record of the Home Office is a rush to legislate imprecisely. For example, one of the effects of the 2000 Terrorism Act was to give police powers to detain people across London they suspect of endangering national security. This led to a number of instances of random detentions of peaceful protesters, most famously outside an arms fair in Docklands. When blank cheques replace carefully proscribed powers, the problem is not so much the badly trained officer, but the badly framed legislation.

Over the past decade this government and its Tory predecessor have introduced more than 30 criminal justice acts. This is about politics, not policing. On Tuesday Howard teamed up with “Robocop” Ray Mallon, the mayor of Middlesbrough and importer into the UK of “zero tolerance” policing in the mid-90s, to pledge another crackdown on crime. Talk, and legislation, is cheap. The Labour government is trying to have it both ways. It says on the one hand that crime has reached record low levels; on the other it competes with the Conservatives in the language of “crackdowns”. If the news is as good as ministers say, they should proclaim it and leave it at that. They should ensure the country has enough police officers to deal with crime, and just for once leave them to get on with the job.

John Kampfner is political editor of the New Statesman

Richard Norton-Taylor

Saturday September 25, 2004

The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1312489,00.html

Newspaper editors and television producers are to be asked to avoid referring to such visible installations as sewage works and power stations on the grounds they are potential targets for terrorists.

The request has been prompted by growing anxiety in parts of Whitehall, notably the Home Office, concerned not least by a spate of drama documentaries about terrorist attacks.

After intense argument about whether the media should disclose the whereabouts of conspicuous locations – and their vulnerability – new media guidelines are being drawn up by the defence, press and broadcasting advisory committee which operates a system of voluntary self-censorship.

The committee will soon extend the reach of D notice number 4 which now concentrates on nuclear weapons and intelligence facilities, according to emergency planning officers.

It will be amended to cover a much wider range of “sensitive sites”, including what Whitehall calls Britain’s “critical national infrastructure”, or CNI. It covers telecommunications, energy, transport and water.

Two years ago MI5 drew up a list of more than 300 possible terrorist targets, including oil refineries, the country’s 15 nuclear power stations, the main National Grid sites, petrochemical facilities, and the atomic weapons establishment at Aldermaston in Berkshire as well as such obvious high-profile targets as the House of Commons.

This summer MI5 warned businesses that terrorists were increasingly looking at “soft” targets such as social and retail venues, tourist sites and transport networks.

It offered sensible practical advice about precautions that public authorities and private companies should take in light of an increased terrorist threat.

Telling the media what to report – or rather not report – about buildings and locations whose functions are visible to the naked eye or described on maps is quite another matter, some senior officials concede.

One issue raised behind the scenes in Whitehall was whether the media should be dissuaded, not only from describing the locations of sensitive sites but from reporting any vulnerability in their defences.

The Home Office suggested that the media should not be allowed to report security lapses as a series of programmes and articles have recently done.

The argument appears to be that this would only help terrorists. The contrary argu ment is that such stories alert the authorities to gaps in security precisely so that they can make locations less vulnerable.

Those in the latter camp seem to have won the battle, on the grounds that if the media are going to pay any attention to D notice guidelines, then they may as well be as reasonable as possible.

It begs the question whether the D notice system is viable in the first place.

Few would want to put lives at risk, whether or not this was the subject of one of the committee’s guidelines.

However, even the existing D notice No 4 refers to the need to seek official advice before disclosing, for example, “sites associated with the nuclear weapons programme”, or “high security MoD and military sites associated with intelligence and other sensitive activities”.

Such sites are well known and many have been photographed, frequently.

Recently the D notice committee – which consists of senior Whitehall figures and media representatives – agreed that the government would say more about the activities of Britain’s special forces. The agreement has been ignored by the MoD.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1312489,00.html

* * * * * *

For more background on what a D notice is all about, check out the pages at:

DA-Notice Home Page – The official site of the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee

http://www.dnotice.org.uk

I was here last week, but ran out of daylight, before I got to this area.

Again, starting out from Upper Booth Farm, only this time, heading west, then north along the beginning of the Pennine Way. With a great deal of puff, climbed up the established route of Jacobs Ladder. This got me to the top of the Kinder Scout plateau. Then, all is at about the same height. There is a trig point on the western edge though, cemented on top of a fairly random rock. [included in these piccys].

The reason I’m back here again though, is to navigate to the ‘woolpacks’. This is an area of huge weathered rocks, millions of years of wind an rain, making some very unusual forms. So many of them, remind me of Henry Moore sculptures. { I wonder if he ever came up here, a plagerised some of God’s work 🙂 }

More piccys from this set of Kinder Scout at:http://tashcamuk.fotopages.com/?entry=221259

Piccys from last week of Kinder Scout http://tashcamuk.fotopages.com/?entry=217120

Map of the area: http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=408500&y=386500&z=3&sv=408500,386500&st=4&ar=N&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf&dn=639

More piccys at:http://tashcamuk.fotopages.com/?entry=221272

Map of the area: http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=412745&y=383635&z=3&sv=412500,383500&st=4&ar=Y&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf&dn=639

Oh, at last!! Whatever you think of the present Labour Government, Mr Meacher and department have done this. I can now walk on a mountain, BY RIGHT, NOT PERMISSION. I think this important. and I say thank you to them. This is all effective in this area of the country from yesterday the 19th.

The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 gives a new right to walk over areas of open countryside and registered common land. Walkers have been campaigning for decades for the opportunity to roam across wide-open spaces.

The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 will give people a new right to walk, responsibly and subject to some common sense restrictions, over areas of open countryside and registered common land in England and Wales.

The Government is introducing these new access rights on a regional basis in England, starting with the South East and Lower North West on the 19 September 2004. In Wales , access becomes a reality in the summer of 2005.

It has not been easy to get this access from the land-owning classes. I attendended the 70th anniversary celebrations of the ‘Kinder Scout Mass Trespass’. In 1932, many were beaten and locked up for walking on mountain and moor, at Kinder Scout. There was a public outcry at the treatment of these young working class lads from Sheffield and Manchester, that eventually, Parliament ‘bought up the rear’ and in 1951, passed an act that created The Peak District’, the first National Park in England.

These guys were heros of mine. Direct Action in 1932, to make my life better now. Thanks guys!

Here are some more piccys I took of the day to celebrate this.

http://tash.dns2go.com/xtra/kinder_scout_vert1/index.htm

http://tash.dns2go.com/WVX640x480/Kinder_Trespass_Capstick640x480.wvx

Years later, I can now walk on a mountain, BY RIGHT, NOT PERMISSION. I think this important.

Countryside Agency http://www.countryside.gov.uk

Countryside Access http://www.countrysideaccess.gov.uk

Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000037.htm

Peak and Northern Footpaths Society http://www.peakandnorthern.org.uk

Starting out from Upper Booth heading north up Crowden Clough, and after a great deal of ‘puff’ end up on to Kinder Scout plataeu. This is the highest point [well area really,] of the Peak District. Splendid views in all directions, reviewing the Vale of Edale.

I started out quite late, so again ran out of daylight before descent. Otherwise, I would have dithered a bit, to photograph the fantastic ‘stone sculptures’ that the wind has cut out of the millions of years there. Will go back again stortly to do these, before the autumn mists mean i can’t find them again ….

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=409500&y=387500&z=3&sv=409500,387500&st=4&ar=N&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf&dn=634

More piccys at: http://tashcamuk.fotopages.com/?entry=217120

More piccys at: http://tashcamuk.fotopages.com/?entry=216607

Weather has been splendid up to yesterday. Today, being Wales, it’s started to rain, lots.

Still, rain and low cloud does makes for some atmospheric shots.

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=262315&y=355120&z=5&sv=262315,355120&st=4&ar=Y&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf&dn=633

More Piccys at: http://tashcamuk.fotopages.com/?entry=216544

Thought I would climb back up to the Snowdon Horseshoe, and finish a bit more of the route, I’d started on tuesday but had run out of daylight.

Starting from my bunkhouse in the village of Nant Peris, I climbed up the slope, east from the road until it became quite a scramble. This got me to the route, taken by the Snowdon railway at Clogwyn Station. Then up another 1000 foot to Garnedd Ugain.

After a drink and a cheese sandwich, I descided to have a crack at Crib Goch.

OS ref: SH624552

This is a rock sharp edge, about a mile long with huge verticle drops on both sides. So very scarey!

Some folks do this bit, standing up, balancing with arm outstretched. Me, I did it as a scramble on all-fours.

There is a break in the picture series here, while on concentrated on what I was doing. It was a nice day, with a bit of wind up there. If it’s at all windy, you just don’t go that way!!

The rest of the time, that afternoon, was spent trying to get back down the valley to Pen-y-Pass and then on the Llanberis. Easy, I thought. But I kept coming upon cliffs of shear drops, and then had to climb back up my route to try again a bit further along. Quite tiring, but did it, then back to the bunkhouse for a little lie down.

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=262315&y=355120&z=3&sv=262500,355500&st=4&ar=Y&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf&dn=633

More piccys at: http://tashcamuk.fotopages.com/?entry=216541

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=255000&y=355000&z=5&sv=255000,355000&st=4&ar=N&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf&dn=633

More piccys at: http://tashcamuk.fotopages.com/?entry=216513

Starting from my campsite at Hafod y Llan, past the Gladstone Rock and up the Watkin Path, south to north.

Summit at OS ref: SH610544

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=261500&y=353500&z=3&sv=261500,353500&st=4&ar=N&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf&dn=633

more piccys at: http://tashcamuk.fotopages.com/?entry=216500

Left Nottingham this morning, for a lot of walking, scrambling and climbing about in the Snowdonia National Park, North Wales.

Camping at Hafod Y Llan OS ref: SH628513

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=262500&y=352500&z=3&sv=262500,352500&st=4&ar=N&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf&dn=633

piccys at: http://tashcamuk.fotopages.com/?entry=216497

“Let right be done” Sir Robert Morton

On BBC2 tonight. I ust had to watch this again. Quite simply, next to Ken Loach’s film “Kes”, Terence Rattigan’s “The Winslow Bow” is one of my favourite all-time films. I’m one of Nigel Hawthornes greatest fans. But I had read the book at school, and have always been so impressed by the sentiments expressed. The law standing up for the little man. “Let Right be done!”

The Winslow Boy, Trial of the Century?

This is a richly textured film based on a fifty-year-old play, tells the true story of a high profile lawsuit in England, a cause celebre that captivated public attention in the waning years of the British Empire just after the turn of the century. Reflecting the gentility of the social conventions followed by its aristocratic characters, much of the film’s intrigue lies just below the surface. With rich Edwardian costumes and witty dialogue, The Winslow Boy resembles a Merchant Ivory film more than a courtroom drama.

Through the lens of a sensational case, the film reveals much about society and the issues of the day, and highlights how public perception both influenced and was influenced by the legal battle. As with many high profile trials, the passage of time has faded the importance of the fate of the litigants and their legal issues. In a hundred years, the O.J. Simpson case will likely be valued far more for what it revealed about the racial difference in perception of the fairness of the criminal justice system than as a courtroom drama. In fact, in The Winslow Boy, there are no scenes of the trial. It’s simply not that important. The characters’ efforts in getting the case to a court and its effects on their lives are the essence of the story.

The plot centers on the fourteen-year-old son of an upper class family (Winslow) who is expelled from the Royal Naval Academy for allegedly stealing five schillings from another cadet. The proceedings which resulted in his expulsion were conducted without the knowledge of the boy’s parents and afforded him no legal representation. The family begins an obsessive quest for judicial review, with the boy’s father and older sister ready to sacrifice the family’s assets and her marriage prospects if necessary. The sister, a suffragist, takes on his cause with the same zeal she devotes to her voting rights work. One of their first tasks is to secure representation by an experienced barrister, a King’s Counsel. He is a rather young looking, conservative member of the House of Lords. He eventually shares the family’s passion for its cause and becomes their champion.

A subplot is the barrister’s rejection of the suffragist ideology espoused by the daughter. Their debates on the subject provide a metaphorical tension between the old ways of the recently passed nineteenth century and change promised by the newly entered twentieth. The romantic tension between them provides no small contribution to the appeal of the story.

The film provides many glimpses of public fascination with the case. There are newspaper headlines in “War Declared” size type, and political cartoons, buttons, posters, and even umbrellas proclaiming allegiance with one side or the other. As snippets in the film show, some citizens worried about England’s place in the world following the decline of the Empire. Thus, some viewed the Winslow boy’s claim as an assault on British institutions and an indirect threat to peerage and the monarchy. Others viewed the claim as an overdue call for a re-examination of the fairness of British society and its traditions. The uneasy juxtaposition of nineteenth and twentieth century sensibilities is best illustrated by the cigarette-smoking suffragists who crowd the women’s spectator galleries overlooking the House of Lords, while peers debate the Winslow case in the sanctity of their males-only club.

Many critics of the day warned that the entire affair was drawing national attention away from more important affairs of state. Looming in the background, phrased with contemporary irony as “trouble in the Balkans,” was the growing inevitability of what would later be called “The Great War,” a conflict that would cut down a generation of British men. The foreboding gloom of the Great War also cast a sort of reverse shadow on the machinations surrounding the expulsion of the Winslow boy from the Naval Academy. His expulsion could have the effect of saving him from annihilation in combat. (In fact, George Archer-Shee, the real-life “Winslow boy,” died in World War I.) This future knowledge the audience has, but the characters do not, provides a tragic overtone to the family’s quest for justice at any cost.

In another sense, public absorption in the case of the Winslow boy was a form of mass distraction from concerns about the world’s troubles. It gave people a chance to forget that the old world they knew was crumbling around them, and that cataclysmic events of unimaginable terror were about to overtake them. Thus, the case foreshadowed Court TV and similar programming four score years later: a forum where people can attempt to either grasp or avoid the overwhelming scope of society’s ills by watching the fate of a single person played out before them. Robert L. Waring

Check out the film details on the Sony Film Site at: http://www.sonyclassics.com/winslowboy/

This film really contrasts, with one i watched a couple of weeks ago. “Blow Up” check this out. You’ll see I have wide taste.

Plenty of exhibits and loads of lovely people.

The biggest cheers of the crowd, went to the public service workers. The Royal Air Force fielded a team for the first time. The NHS and Ambulance Services and the Gay Police Association. Full dress uniforms, don’t they look smart.

http://www.manchesterpride.com

More piccys on my PhotoBlog at: http://tashcamuk.fotopages.com/?entry=203709

On driving past, I found many walls, simply covered in artwork at “The Arches” Ladybay Bridge, Nottingham. I think this a particularly colourful set, made by many graphic artist. Not vandelism eh? as some think.

I want to draw your attention to the Leprechaun. It is fantastic. Really fine. In time, I may meet the creator, and simply say well done. I’ve just made it my computer desktop.

‘The Arches’ is an enlightened youth project of Nottingham City Youth Service.

Web: http://www.cityyouth.co.uk

email: cityyouth@cnxnotts.co.uk

text: 07766 475136

More piccy on my Photoblog at:

http://tashcamuk.fotopages.com/?entry=195805