UK Citizens Extradition Fight

June 25, 2008

Flats fall: No watchdog action

Jun 25 2008 by Simon Walton, Evening Gazette

A POLICE watchdog is to take no action over the death of a man who plunged from Teesside flats after officers arrived at his door.

Kevin Frederick Williams, 45, an unemployed labourer, fell to his death from a 12th floor flat in Fleet House in Cargo Fleet Lane, Middlesbrough, on Sunday.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) was notified as Cleveland Police officers had arrived at Mr Williams’ door before the incident.

Witnesses described how Mr Williams appeared to be speaking to someone while sat on the window frame.

He went back into the flat, but reappeared, dangled from the frame by his fingertips then fell.

It later emerged police had been outside the flat, although it has not been revealed why.

A spokeswoman for Cleveland Police said today the IPCC would have no further part in the investigation, which would now be dealt with internally by the force.

She said: “The death of Kevin Frederick Williams was referred to the IPCC by Cleveland Police. Officers had been outside the address prior to Mr Williams’ death and as such it is normal practice to contact the IPCC. The IPCC has subsequently advised that the death will remain a local Cleveland Police investigation with no further IPCC involvement.”

The spokeswoman said the investigation was being carried out by Middlesbrough CID. “Yeh Right!” By Brian Howes

She added: “We can confirm that no one else was present in the flat at the time of Mr Williams’ death.”

Cleveland Police are not treating the death as suspicious.

Teesside Coroner Michael Sheffield yesterday opened and adjourned an inquest into Mr Williams’ death.

The brief hearing was told that Mr Williams, who was divorced and lived in Fleet House, was pronounced dead by a paramedic.

Mr Williams’ aunt Patricia Mary McHale, 65, of Redcar, confirmed evidence of identification.

Cleveland and Middlesbrough Police Corruption

UK Force faces 286 corruption claims  ‘Zero tolerance’ officer Ray Mallon is being investigated A total of 286 complaints are being investigated in a corruption probe against Cleveland Police. Some 39 officers are under suspicion as part of the Operation Lancet probe, which began nearly a year ago.

Suspects have alleged
Suspects have alleged “ritualistic” violence against them
Eight officers have been suspended, including the former head of Middlesbrough CID. Detective Superintendent Ray Mallon, gained prominence as the architect of ‘zero tolerance’ policing policy on Teesside.

    The Police Complaints Authority’s investigation includes allegations of serious assault and intimidation. These involve “almost ritualistic” violence against suspects to extract confessions, as well as minor procedural irregularities. The inquiry began after a case collapsed at Teesside Crown Court last October when a defendant claimed that officers tried to bribe him with drugs. There are 43 allegations concerning drugs in the investigation and the PCA has received 11 of these. A remaining 32 are expected over the next few weeks. ‘Hanging out to dry’ In May this year, former president of the Police Superintendents’ Association, Brian Mackenzie urged the PCA to conclude the inquiry as soon as possible. He said Operation Lancet had lost its way. He said: “What shouldn’t be happening, is that people like Ray Mallon, who are caught up in the original inquiry should be left hanging out to dry while the last minor inquiry is finalised.” Supt Mallon, feted by politicians for his tough approach to crime, has strenuously denied any wrongdoing. Although the allegations are apparently not related to ‘zero tolerance’ it is with this policy Supt Mallon will remain linked in many people’s minds. ‘Robocop’ style When he was appointed in November 1996, he promised to quit if crime in the area had not gone down by 20% in 18 months. His tough-cop style earned him the nickname ‘Robocop’. Reductions in crimes against property in Middlesbrough increased national interest in zero tolerance. Murder reduction But Supt Mallon received adverse publicity when he had to suspend two CID officers who allegedly gave a suspect heroin in return for confessions. Zero tolerance, or ‘positive policing’ as many prefer to call it, originated in New York. A large drop in the city’s murder rate was attributed to the strategy. It attempts to tackle law-breaking from the bottom up by treating petty crime as seriously as other offences. This philosophy behind it is known as the ‘broken windows’ theory because its proponents argue even

How councils are using surveillance

Filed under: Human Rights,News — Brian Howes @ 11:03 am
Tags: , ,

Councils across Britain are routinely using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) to snoop on dog foulers, litterbugs and illegal parkers.

In April, the Press Association surveyed nearly 100 councils and discovered the legislation was used to find out about people who let their dog foul (at least seven cases), breaches of planning law (one case), animal welfare (one case), littering (at least one case) and even the misuse of a disabled parking badge (one case).

The research took place to find the extent of the “surveillance Britain” after a family in Poole in Dorset were tracked covertly for nearly three weeks to check they lived in a school catchment area.

The same council has made similar checks on two other families in the last year under Ripa and defended its actions by saying the cases were treated as potential criminal activity, which allowed it to spy under the law.

Poole council also snooped on fishermen to see whether they were illegally catching shellfish. Cctvcleveland

In the survey the large majority of the surveillance was used to combat rogue traders, benefit fraud, counterfeit goods and antisocial behaviour like noise nuisance and criminal damage.

Under Ripa, councils can conduct surveillance if they suspect criminal activity, they can also ask for subscriber details of internet and telephone bills but they cannot tap phones or intercept emails.

But the interpretation of what is criminal activity has led to some debate.

Four councils – Derby City, Bolton, Gateshead and Hartlepool – used surveillance to investigate dog fouling, with Bolton also using the act to find out about littering, the research found.

Kensington and Chelsea conducted surveillance in regard to the misuse of a disabled parking badge.

Liverpool city council used it for one case of a false claim for damages investigation.

Denbighshire county council used surveillance for one animal welfare investigation and Conwy council had one case where it used the law to spy on someone who was working while off sick.

In other areas, the surveillance law was used by Redcar and Cleveland for a food hygiene investigation (one case) and Newcastle used it for one case of “car parking surveillance re suspected contraventions of parking orders”.

Redcar and Cleveland will of been the biggest snoops of them all and just hide it better.
Technorati Tags: , , ,

Cleveland Police Chief Might Face High Court Anti-Piracy Action

Police Chief Faces High Court Anti-Piracy Action

Hello people you can bet Sir Sean Price Chief of Cleveland Police will be getting their licence now. And you can bet he won’t come public with the fact that the hypocrites at Cleveland Police Headquarters will do everything they can to keep their Piracy Secret. But it won’t be called conspiracy for the police just Oink.

Written by enigmax on June 12, 2008

After the police arrest citizens for minor copyright infringements that allegedly took place on OiNK, they now face their own anti-piracy woes. Chief Constable Steve Finnigan is accused by the music industry of copyright infringement and now faces High Court action. Police pirates – who would have imagined it?

SteveFinniganWhen it comes to copyright, we live in a strange world of double-standards. One minute a minor copyright infringer will be ignored or tolerated, the next thing we know – such as in the recent OiNK arrests – those same civil law infringements are inflated to become some sort of next-level serious cyber-crime. A few days later, and those same offenses are now just worthy of a simple warning – confusing times. Today, the strange world of copyright has the music industry threatening those it has encouraged to work for them in the OiNK case – the police. UK music licensing outfit the “Performing Right Society” (PRS) – the guys that come asking for money when you play any music within earshot of the public – is rolling out the big guns ready for a High Court showdown with a little known group of music pirates, known in the UK as ‘the police’. Not the band of the same name, but that government organization people rely on for keeping law and order. According to a report, the police in the county of Lancashire have apparently committed a terrible crime and let the whole country down. Rather like the copyright infringing tea-rooms and their carol-singing occupants we wrote about last year, it appears that the police have been recklessly listening to music in stations all over the county – without a license. The PRS aren’t happy. Chief Constable Steve Finnigan is the guy being held accountable for this awful breach of copyright across 34 police stations in his county. One shudders to think of the damage that these boys-in-blue have caused the industry, as they coincidentally listen to the radio at the same time as serving the citizens of Britain. But it doesn’t stop there – according to a High Court writ, unlicensed music has also been played in police gyms, conferences, presentations and office parties. As if things aren’t bad enough, there are worrying claims that telephone callers to police stations were put on hold and forced to listen to unlicensed music while they waited to report crimes. The trauma of ‘holding music’ is bad enough, but throw ‘unlicensed’ holding music into the mix and the gravity of this infringement is obvious. The PRS is looking to get an injunction against the force and if it’s successful it will silence music in police stations right across the county, unless they dig deep for the appropriate license. The PRS is also sensitively and sensibly claiming damages from the already under-funded police. It seems that further police forces in the UK have informed the PRS that music is often played in the background in their offices, with eleven of them either failing or refusing to obtain licenses enabling them to listen to it legally. Generally, the PRS make a request for information from people who they believe should be paying them money, usually by letter. The recipient is then expected to tell them all about their music-playing antics and after this is complete, the PRS calculate and then send out a bill. Interestingly, it’s claimed that the head of legal services at Lancashire police told the PRS that she had instructed her colleagues to ignore the requests for information. She then emailed the PRS and said she had instructions to accept the service of proceedings against the force. The PRS legal eagles believe that Steve Finnigan is admitting the claims, which could mean that the UK will shortly have its first Pirate Chief Constable. Let’s hope his associates at Cleveland Police don’t get involved – the last thing the police boss needs is to be arrested on conspiracy to defraud the music industry. Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

Man may have plunged to death after arrival of police

Man may have plunged to death after arrival of police

A MAN is believed to have plunged to his death from his high rise flat just moments after police officers knocked on his door.

Kevin Frederick Williams, 46, died on Sunday morning after falling from the 12th floor of Fleet House in Cargo Fleet Lane, Middlesbrough.

Witnesses said they saw a man sat on the window frame of the flat as he engaged in a verbal exchange with someone inside.

He went back into the flat before reappearing and then dangled himself from the window by his fingertips.

Moments later he fell to his death.Fleethousecargofleetlane

Yesterday, it emerged that no one else was inside the flat at the time he fell.

However, officers from Cleveland Police were outside the flat at the time, and The Northern Echo understands they were attempting to speak to Mr Williams when he made for the window.

As is normal with any case where police are present or involved when someone dies, Cleveland Police contacted watchdog the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) about the incident.

However, yesterday, the IPCC said they had looked at the case and would no longer be conducting a probe.

Instead, an investigation into what happened at the flats will be carried out by Middlesbrough CID.

Police refused to say why they had been outside the man’s flat on Sunday, but said they were not treating his death as suspicious.

A witness outside the flat, who did not want to be named, said she heard the man shouting that he was going to jump.

Others said he was shouting and swearing before he fell.

An inquest into his death was opened at Teesside Coroner’s Court yesterday afternoon and adjourned for further enquiries.

Anyone with information should call Cleveland Police on 01642-326326.

June 23, 2008

Howes family appeal for justice

My name is Brian Howes and I have not broken any laws yet my wife and I have spent 214 days in jail without charge. We have no criminal records and were running a respectable chemicals supply company. We were arrested to be extradited to the US with no evidence against us. We had 5 minutes separately with a duty solicitor in Edinburgh Sheriffs Court; the duty solicitor said they only want you so if you sign to go Kerry can go home. I had not broken any laws and fully expected to go home anyway but as I was taken up the stairs to the court Kerry now my Wife was coming down the stairs crying and saying she was going to prison. After entering the court the Prosecutor said I was in increased danger of supplying more chemicals to the America and we had access to large amounts of money. Later I found that the day before our remand to prison our company and chemicals had been taken over by the police and the small amount of money in our bank was frozen.

Our four young girls spent 214 days living with their granny when they should have been home with us.

After six months of being away from our children and each other I was told the US had no intentions of allowing bail so I started a hunger strike in protest of our treatment, after being in hospital and on the 31st day of August we got bail and picked our gorgeous girls up who had been traumatised from our family separation. Physiological reports show a severe effect on our children.

There has been no accountability for anything that has happened to us. We are on legal aid and are denied senior council at every stage. We lost our battle in the sheriff’s court and now we face the high court. We have been told because we live in Scotland we can’t appeal to the House of Lords or the European Court Of Human Rights.

We have many letters and emails of support from Members of Parliament like Nick Clegg and many more from all parties but sympathy and disagreement with our situation won’t stop extradition.

We live in fear of what might happen, my wife Kerry is suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome and severe depression and I am helpless to help her.

Our kids are happy but another separation and care would be a total injustice.

I have offered myself to the US more than once and they play mind games and change the deals until a deal is not possible.

If a judge can’t look at evidence how can an innocent couple fight extradition.

There are people that have said why not go and prove you are innocent but when some of the enditements are not against UK law how can you do that?

If we are extradited to America we will be both in prisons in Arizona and because we will have public defenders it will take three years or more to go to trial, so if we win we lose because our children are our lives and without them or each other we would not survive that long.

We have also been told that our two year old daughter and five year old would most certainly be adopted and we would have no further rights over them as the bond would be gone after so long.

So can somebody tell me out there what to do next? I sign at the police station twice a day a curfew from 8pm to 8am and my wife signs between that. Every visit to court means another attempted bail revocation. Where is the protection for my family in from the Government?

We will fight to the end but I feel it will truly be the end.

How councils are using surveillance

Councils across Britain are routinely using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) to snoop on dog foulers, litterbugs and illegal parkers.

In April, the Press Association surveyed nearly 100 councils and discovered the legislation was used to find out about people who let their dog foul (at least seven cases), breaches of planning law (one case), animal welfare (one case), littering (at least one case) and even the misuse of a disabled parking badge (one case).

The research took place to find the extent of the “surveillance Britain” after a family in Poole in Dorset were tracked covertly for nearly three weeks to check they lived in a school catchment area.

The same council has made similar checks on two other families in the last year under Ripa and defended its actions by saying the cases were treated as potential criminal activity, which allowed it to spy under the law.

Poole council also snooped on fishermen to see whether they were illegally catching shellfish.

In the survey the large majority of the surveillance was used to combat rogue traders, benefit fraud, counterfeit goods and antisocial behaviour like noise nuisance and criminal damage.

Under Ripa, councils can conduct surveillance if they suspect criminal activity, they can also ask for subscriber details of internet and telephone bills but they cannot tap phones or intercept emails.

But the interpretation of what is criminal activity has led to some debate.

Four councils – Derby City, Bolton, Gateshead and Hartlepool – used surveillance to investigate dog fouling, with Bolton also using the act to find out about littering, the research found.

Kensington and Chelsea conducted surveillance in regard to the misuse of a disabled parking badge.

Liverpool city council used it for one case of a false claim for damages investigation.

Denbighshire county council used surveillance for one animal welfare investigation and Conwy council had one case where it used the law to spy on someone who was working while off sick.

In other areas, the surveillance law was used by Redcar and Cleveland for a food hygiene investigation (one case) and Newcastle used it for one case of “car parking surveillance re suspected contraventions of parking orders”.

Redcar and Cleveland will of been the biggest snoops of them all and just hide it better.
Technorati Tags: , , ,

June 22, 2008

Abu Hamza extradition is no cause for rejoice

By Philip Johnston

Their story, and those of the two Abus – Hamza and Qatada – provide an extraordinary insight into both how London became a hotbed for imported Islamist militancy and how the legal system and human rights laws subsequently made it almost impossible to deal with it. Furthermore, the cost to the taxpayer of the legal action in these four cases runs into millions of pounds.
Lawyers for Fawwaz and Abdelbarry say America has no right to try them because their alleged crimes did not take place within US jurisdiction. But this matter was – or should have been – resolved by the law lords, the supreme court in the land, when they ruled in December 2001 that jurisdiction could be interpreted more widely than the territory of a foreign state. However, dozens of further representations were made on behalf of the two men.
This is now a legal action that makes Jarndyce & Jarndyce look expeditious. It beggars belief that the law lords can declare the extradition warrant lawful and yet absolutely nothing happens for seven years. The final decision must be taken by the Home Secretary; yet it turns out that this extradition was not ordered until March of this year. An official at the Home Office said it was “still going though a process of judicial review… they remain in extradition custody.” The explanation given for the incredibly lengthy delays was that “they were seeking judicial challenges.”
It could be argued more fool them. If they volunteered themselves into American custody, they would at least receive a trial and could be found as innocent as they claim to be. Why would anyone want to stay in jail for so long without having their day in court? But more importantly, what sort of judicial system enables this to happen? The law has been changed recently to make extradition to America easier.
This has simply had the effect of allowing British citizens, like the NatWest Three, to be removed to US jurisdiction without a prima facie case being made against them. Yet at the same time, foreign nationals such as Abu Qatada, who are considered a threat to this country, cannot be extradited, nor can they be imprisoned. Last week, he was released from detention, albeit on bail.
The cause of much of this confusion is the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), a hugely enlightened document when it was signed almost 50 years ago but which has become a legal millstone around our necks. It was an attempt to bind those countries most responsible for the atrocities of the Second World War to a code that limited state power in relationship to the individual.
The convention drew upon British concepts of liberty; and this country was among the first to sign up to its provisions, even though its principle protections were designed not for us, who already possessed them, but for the people of those countries that had never had them. The UK and Ireland were the only two common law jurisdictions among the first 14 signatory nations, which is why the convention sits so uncomfortably within our legal system and why we are finding it so very difficult to deal with its shortcomings.
It was a mistake to incorporate the ECHR into British law through the Human Rights Act, a move that has caused tensions between parliament and the judiciary that are getting worse. No story captures these difficulties better than the Qatada saga. He is wanted for trial in Jordan but cannot be deported because of the risk he could be “subjected to inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment”, prohibited by Article 3 of the convention, but neither can he be jailed, and nor should he be, without trial. As a result, a man who is not British and who was given sanctuary here yet plotted with this country’s enemies, can continue to live in this country, probably for good and almost certainly on benefits.
At the same time, we have to spend 10 years and considerable sums of money to extradite two other foreign nationals to a friendly country where they are wanted in connection with the worst imaginable crimes. The ECHR also prevented Britain removing the Afghanis who hijacked a plane and flew it and their families to the UK eight years ago. They are still here. And although there is widespread expectation that Abu Hamza will be extradited, you have to wonder whether appeals and human rights laws will not intervene there, too.

There is something so fundamentally wrong here that any government must seek to address it. The Tories have promised to repeal the Human Rights Act and introduce a British Bill of Rights, but that is just window-dressing since it would still be subject to the ECHR. One remedy is to withdraw from the convention and rely upon our own laws to balance the protection of individual liberties with wider security interests. It would a difficult and complex thing to do – and might be ruled incompatible with Britain’s membership of the EU – which is why none of the major political parties will seriously consider such a move. Perhaps it is time one did.

June 15, 2008

Appeal over toddler death verdict (BBC Newsnight)

This Cleveland Police Fitting up Somebody Innocent is all very common and anybody who chooses to tell of Cleveland Police Corruption runs the risk of being Persecuted Just like my Family. If they can’t get you for anything here they will even go to the US and get them to extradite you.

This movie requires Adobe Flash for playback.

When toddler Kyle Fisher fell mortally ill in 2004 while being looked after by babysitter Suzanne Holdsworth the police concluded that she must have murdered him – and a jury agreed.
The murder conviction against Holdsworth, now 37, from Hartlepool, rests on the assumption that Kyle was fundamentally a healthy little boy.
But this assumption, it now turns out, may be mistaken.
On Monday Newsnight is to broadcast fresh evidence in a troubling case, a day before the High Court will hear Holdsworth’s appeal.
Fits can kill
Kyle had something immediately and obviously wrong with him. His right eye drooped. The jury had seen a photograph of his poorly eye but had little idea what lay behind it.
What the jury did not know was that behind the drooping eye lay major brain damage from a year-old eye injury – nothing to do with the babysitter.
Nor did the jury hear that two surgeons had examined Kyle six months before he died.
They planned to operate on the brain injury and noted their concerns in Kyle’s medical notes. The brain damage could cause Kyle to fit and fits can kill.
Nor did the jury hear that a senior officer on the case, Acting Detective Sergeant Sharon Birch, had read the medical notes and asked that statements be taken from the two surgeons.
For reasons that have yet to be explained, the murder inquiry did not take statements from the surgeons. Mrs Birch was removed from the inquiry.
Holdsworth, from Hartlepool, looks haggard in the police photo taken shortly after her arrest.
The mother-of-two has always denied harming Kyle – but after a jury heard the Crown’s case that she must have smashed Kyle’s head against a banister with the force of a 60mph car crash, she was convicted in March 2005 and sentenced to life imprisonment.
The Kyle murder inquiry was led by Cleveland’s super cop, Det Supt Tony Hutchinson – so famous for cracking the Canoe Man pseudo-cide of John Darwin that a clip of him appeared on Have I Got News For You.
The force magazine boasted of a “relentless investigation” into Kyle’s murder.
Tomorrow that investigation will come under scrutiny at the Appeal Court.
If the banister was the murder weapon, why was there no blood, DNA, hair or skin on it? Why was there no dent on the banister?
But the most troubling questions centre on Kyle’s eye. He had suffered an injury to his eye in March 2003 when he was in the care of his mother, Clare Fisher.
Over months, Kyle’s eye started to droop and in February 2004 he was seen by face surgeon Professor Brian Avery and brain surgeon Sid Marks.
Professor Avery told Newsnight the eye-socket “bone had somehow been fractured and the brain was herniating down from the brain cavity into the eye socket and the reason why the eye was drooped was because the brain was pushing down on top of the eye.”
The Appeal Court will hear from experts such as neuro-radiologist Dr Philip Anslow and neuro-pathologist Dr Waney Squier who will say that scarred brains can cause fits and fits are potentially lethal.
Convicted
Professor Avery, a dean of the Royal College of Surgeons, said Cleveland Police “certainly didn’t get in contact with me. Mr Marks says that he cannot recall anyone contacting him and certainly neither of us completed a statement or anything like that.”
I asked him whether that was right in the context of a murder inquiry?
Prof Avery replied: “No, I think we should have been contacted and we had potentially useful information and we should have been asked to give a statement.”
Sharon Birch, then an acting detective sergeant, had read the medical notes and suggested that statements should be taken from the two surgeons.
She told Newsnight: “I think it should have been investigated further and looked at – to be ruled out or proven significant.”
Major concerns
That did not happen. Mrs Birch remained deeply worried about the case and later told a senior officer of her concerns.
That led to the trial being halted for two days and she was questioned, she says, by prosecution, defence and the police in the absence of judge and jury.
She says she may have got some details wrong, but she says she argued that Kyle’s eye merited further investigation.
The trial continued, Holdsworth was convicted and Mrs Birch later left the police.
Det Supt Hutchinson has made no comment on the case.
Cleveland Police say the appeal is the proper venue for the new defence arguments to be tested and the defence at the trial knew of Mrs Birch’s concerns but did not call her as a witness.

Cleveland Police Chief Might Face High Court Anti-Piracy Action

Police Chief Faces High Court Anti-Piracy Action

Hello
people you can bet Sir Sean Price Chief of Cleveland Police will be getting their
licence now. And you can bet he won’t come public with the fact that the hypocrites
at Cleveland Police Headquarters will do everything they can to keep their Piracy
Secret. But it won’t be called conspiracy for the police just Oink.


Written by enigmax on June 12, 2008

After the police arrest citizens for minor copyright infringements that allegedly took place on OiNK, they now face their own anti-piracy woes. Chief Constable Steve Finnigan is accused by the music industry of copyright infringement and now faces High Court action. Police pirates – who would have imagined it?

SteveFinniganWhen it comes to copyright, we live in a strange world of double-standards. One minute a minor copyright infringer will be ignored or tolerated, the next thing we know – such as in the recent OiNK arrests – those same civil law infringements are inflated to become some sort of next-level serious cyber-crime.

A few days later, and those same offenses are now just worthy of a simple warning – confusing times.

Today, the strange world of copyright has the music industry threatening those it has encouraged to work for them in the OiNK case – the police.

UK music licensing outfit the “Performing Right Society” (PRS) – the guys that come asking for money when you play any music within earshot of the public – is rolling out the big guns ready for a High Court showdown with a little known group of music pirates, known in the UK as ‘the police’. Not the band of the same name, but that government organization people rely on for keeping law and order.

According to a report, the police in the county of Lancashire have apparently committed a terrible crime and let the whole country down. Rather like the copyright infringing tea-rooms and their carol-singing occupants we wrote about last year, it appears that the police have been recklessly listening to music in stations all over the county – without a license. The PRS aren’t happy.

Chief Constable Steve Finnigan is the guy being held accountable for this awful breach of copyright across 34 police stations in his county. One shudders to think of the damage that these boys-in-blue have caused the industry, as they coincidentally listen to the radio at the same time as serving the citizens of Britain. But it doesn’t stop there – according to a High Court writ, unlicensed music has also been played in police gyms, conferences, presentations and office parties.

As if things aren’t bad enough, there are worrying claims that telephone callers to police stations were put on hold and forced to listen to unlicensed music while they waited to report crimes. The trauma of ‘holding music’ is bad enough, but throw ‘unlicensed’ holding music into the mix and the gravity of this infringement is obvious.

The PRS is looking to get an injunction against the force and if it’s successful it will silence music in police stations right across the county, unless they dig deep for the appropriate license. The PRS is also sensitively and sensibly claiming damages from the already under-funded police.

It seems that further police forces in the UK have informed the PRS that music is often played in the background in their offices, with eleven of them either failing or refusing to obtain licenses enabling them to listen to it legally.

Generally, the PRS make a request for information from people who they believe should be paying them money, usually by letter. The recipient is then expected to tell them all about their music-playing antics and after this is complete, the PRS calculate and then send out a bill. Interestingly, it’s claimed that the head of legal services at Lancashire police told the PRS that she had instructed her colleagues to ignore the requests for information. She then emailed the PRS and said she had instructions to accept the service of proceedings against the force.

The PRS legal eagles believe that Steve Finnigan is admitting the claims, which could mean that the UK will shortly have its first Pirate Chief Constable. Let’s hope his associates at Cleveland Police don’t get involved – the last thing the police boss needs is to be arrested on conspiracy to defraud the music industry.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

June 11, 2008

Brown enters the final hours of his battle to win vote on 42 days

By Andrew Grice and Nigel Morris

Wednesday, 11 June 2008

 

GETTY IMAGES

Gordon Brown engaged in last-minute arm-twisting with his MPs yesterday

Gordon Brown is struggling to head off a Commons defeat tonight over his plans to allow police to detain suspected terrorists for up to 42 days without charge.

The Prime Minister took personal charge of the last-minute arm-twisting in a desperate attempt to avert a defeat that would trigger a crisis of confidence in his leadership. With more than 40 Labour backbenchers threatening to vote against the Government, one close Brown ally claimed it was “looking grim”.

Mr Brown’s fate could lay in the hands of about 10 wavering Labour MPs, who oppose 42-day detention but may pull back from voting against it because defeat would inflict further damage on the party’s standing with voters.

Ministers were forced to plead with members of the hard-left Campaign Group, some of whom Mr Brown has met three times, and the Democratic Unionist Party, who normally vote with the Conservatives and whose nine MPs could hold the balance.

The Prime Minister even risked a rift with George Bush on the eve of the US President’s visit to London by promising Labour left-wingers he would back the lifting of EU sanctions against Cuba if they supported him on 42 days. Mr Bush wants the sanctions, which include a ban on high-level visits by Cuban officials, to be maintained but some EU countries, led by Spain, want them abolished to encourage the new leadership in Cuba.

“It was a tempting offer but I have decided that human rights in Britain are more important,” said one left-winger who was lobbied by Mr Brown.

Whips are pulling out all the stops. One Labour MP, John MacDougall, who is ill and rarely attends the Commons, will travel from his Glenrothes constituency to support the Bill. Whips are warning potential rebels that defeat would inflict terrible damage on the Government. But Downing Street denied that Mr Brown would call a vote of confidence if he suffers his first Commons defeat.

The Government suffered a triple setback on the eve of the crunch vote. It was accused of “sexing up” the need for police to question terror suspects beyond the current 28-day limit.

Ministers have argued that during Operation Overt, which exposed an alleged plot at Heathrow airport in 2006, evidence came to light only at the end of the 28-day period. They have claimed it proves the police are “up against the buffers” and that a longer period will be needed in future terrorism cases.

But the human rights group Liberty accused the Government of making “inaccurate and misleading” statements about the operation. A lawyer on the case has told Liberty that the evidence used to charge two suspects at the end of the 28-day period was obtained by police within four and 12 days respectively. The lawyer claimed that, during the last 15 days of detention, the interviewing of both suspects tailed off dramatically, lasting an average of 10 and 16 minutes a day respectively.

Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, said: “I am shocked, angry and more than a little disappointed to find ministers have repeatedly sexed up the operational pressures on the existing 28-day detention limit. I hope the similarities with the infamous Iraq vote will not be lost on Labour MPs.”

David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, said the revelations were the “final nail in the coffin of the Government’s case for 42 days”. He said: “It is now clear that, in the most complex counter-terrorism case in British history, we were nowhere near the 28-day limit. It demonstrates all too clearly why the prosecuting authorities say that they can manage comfortably with the current 28-day limit.”

The Muslim Council of Britain launched a strongly worded attack on the proposed extension, warning it would damage community relations and undermine Britain’s moral authority around the world. Muhammad Abdul Bari, its secretary general, said: “This legislation will be counterproductive and will play into the hands of extremist groups.”

Andrew Dismore, chairman of Parliament’s joint human rights committee, said the Government’s definition of a “grave, exceptional terrorist threat” was “extraordinarily broad and includes events or situations which fall well short of constituting a genuine emergency in any meaningful sense of that word”.

Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, will try to win over wavering Labour MPs during today’s Commons debate by promising compensation for terror suspects held beyond the28-day limit and then released.

Ten Labour MPs told The Independent they were still making up their minds how to vote. Graham Stringer, MP for Manchester Blackley, said: “So far, the Government has failed to persuade me there is evidence they need the 42 days. I will listen to what they have to say”

How the detention period would work

*Day 1

Police arrest men suspected of plotting a mass attack.

*Day 3

Senior officers apply to magistrates to hold suspects for up to seven days under the 2000 Terrorism Act.

*Day 7

Crown Prosecution Service applies for a further seven days’ detention.

*Day 14

Application made to High Court for another seven days’ detention.

*Day 21

Application for further seven days.

*Day 27

Home Secretary says there is “grave exceptional terrorist threat” to the country. Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and police agree longer detention is justified.

*Day 28

Home Secretary signs order bringing 42-day limit into force under 2008 Counter-Terrorism Act. Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, Parliamentary Joint Human Rights Committee and Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee are informed.

*Day 29

Home Secretary tells Parliament that emergency powers activated.

*Day 35

Deadline for extended detention period to be approved by the Commons and the Lords. Detention for further seven days needs new consent from DPP and judge.

*Day 42

Suspects to be charged or released.

*Day 58

Emergency higher detention limit expires.

Interesting? Click here to explore further

Post a comment

Is it conceivable that in 27 days, no charges can be brought against an individual who poses a “grave exceptional terrorist threat” to the country? Why can’t we introduce a new criminal offence for posing such a threat? Surely, if it is a real threat, it can be substantiated by evidence.
I hope Brown loses the vote today, and that his inevitable replacement will follow swiftly. We need someone to run our nation in crisis. The crisis has nothing to do with arbitrary detention periods. It has to do with the terror suffered by millions in Britain today. The banks are set to hike interest rates. The Russians and Americans are holding us to ransom over gas and oil, respectively. Output is down, prices are up. Jobs are being lost at an alarming rate. The 42 day vote is in my opinion a weak leader’s attempt to deflect us from the real issues facing our country today.

setIdentity(“postcomment-sender”);

Complain about this comment

Posted by Andy | 11.06.08, 10:43 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

* Name: * Email:
* Message:

What I don’t understand is: If there is a “grave exceptional terrorist threat”, why can’t they just charge the suspect with conspiracy to commit terrorist acts? And I answer my own question: Because that would mean the suspect would have to be given access to a lawyer. What exactly goes in in UK detention centres that the government is afraid to let lawyers in?

Complain about this comment

Posted by Neil | 11.06.08, 10:22 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

* Name: * Email:
* Message:

Yet again this government is playing to the politics of fear. Time they developed the backbone to realise that by curtailling our rights and undermining the precious few liberties we have left, they are actually carrying out the objectives of the terrorists (if any actually exist who are actually a serious and real threat to us) on their behalf.

We have had so many cooked up stories about terrorism that have turned out to be false, when the demonstrable facts show that it is the UK, with the USA, who have unilaterally acted as rogue states with impunity. When these war criminals are brought to book, then maybe we can start talking about issues of safety and justice.

Complain about this comment

Posted by Peter Robbins | 11.06.08, 10:10 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

* Name: * Email:
* Message:

Strange how New Labour Governments seemed so principled when it comes to fighting terrorism, or supporting American wars. Yet, fighting levels of road accidents (responsible for the deaths of thousands of Britons) does not seem a priority. It’s almost as if the mantra of ‘doing the right thing’ only applies when countering a handful Muslim extremists, rather than many millions of affluent motorists.

Complain about this comment

Posted by Margaret of Anjou | 11.06.08, 10:06 GMT

Post a complaint

Big deal, i’m more interested in being protected from religious nutters who want to blow us up – and after london we can be sure its not a figment of our imaginations . 30 days, 40 days, whatever, make it a 100 days for all i care. Its a small price to pay.

Complain about this comment

Posted by Frank Missen | 11.06.08, 09:49 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

* Name: * Email:
* Message:

Let’s hope that the cringing mass of political opportunists that used to be the Labour Party can summon the vestigial remains of their consciences and their principles and vote down this latest assault on our historical freedoms.

I say to those as yet uncommitted to opposing this measure – if you hope to expunge your guilt over the ongoing nightmare Blair and Brown created in Iraq, opposition to the 42-day limit will be a small step towards redemption. This is no time to submit to the bullying of the whips, the anodyne assurance of Jacqui Smith and the tacky appeals to party loyalty. The eyes of free men and women are on you – do the right thing!

Complain about this comment

Posted by Peter Curran | 11.06.08, 09:04 GMT

Exclusive: Secret report reveals blunder in 42-day terror proposal

Terror suspects cannot be caged without charge for 42 days in either police cells or jails, a secret report claims.

The blunder emerged as No.10 admitted there was “still more to do” for the Government to win this evening’s key Commons vote on the issue. Senior Labour sources said the 6pm vote was still too close to call.

But an internal Met Police document, leaked to the Mirror, reveals police cells cannot be used as they do not meet “minimum standards”.

And overcrowded high-security jails are regarded as unsuitable for people who have not been charged.

Accusing the Government of not thinking through its plans, the document declares: “There is currently no guide for the longer term detention of terrorist suspects.”

The report will heighten MPs’ suspicions that ministers are more concerned about looking tough on terror than taking real action to reduce the risk of an atrocity.

Gordon Brown has said increasing the time terror suspects can be held without charge from 28 to 42 days is vital to deal with more complicated al-Qaeda plots. Opponents say it is a modern version of internment that will fuel radicalism amongst young Muslims and boost terrorism.

The PM’s official spokesman admitted there was still more to do to win doubters round for the vote.

Home Office Minister Tony McNulty was confident. He said: “I think common sense will prevail.”

A defeat would plunge Mr Brown into a new leadership crisis.

One normally loyal minister said: “This could be enough to persuade Gordon’s enemies to decide it is time to move. It might lead to an incredibly difficult couple of days.”

VITAL FOR BROWN

Forget terrorism. Today’s vote on 42 days’ detention has become about political power.

A few months ago, the PM was prepared to lose the vote – but now a win is vital for him. Losing would be a disaster and could be just enough to embolden those who believe Brown is not the right man to lead them into the next election – and spark a major crisis in Labour.

June 7, 2008

Brown Desperate appeals for support in detention vote

Sat Jun 7, 2008 12:53pm BST
Photo

By Jeremy Lovell

LONDON (Reuters) – Prime Minister Gordon Brown has made a last ditch appeal for support from his party for proposals to extend pre-charge detention for terrorism suspects to 42 days.

Brown’s poll ratings are at an all-time low after the loss of a formerly safe parliamentary seat, a drubbing in local elections and with the economy slowing sharply, and defeat in the security vote on Wednesday could further dent his authority.

“In the legislation currently before parliament we have done everything in our power to protect the civil liberties of the individual against any arbitrary treatment, because in Britain liberty is and remains at the centre of our constitutional settlement,” Brown wrote in a letter to his lawmakers released by his Downing Street office on Saturday.

“The challenge has been to make sure that, through proper judicial and parliamentary oversight, we both keep the public free from the threat to our security, and secure the fundamental liberties of the citizen.”

It is the latest in a series of efforts Brown and his party managers have made to head off a threatened rebellion by Labour MPs who see the legislation as an unacceptable attack on civil liberties in the name of security.

The law currently allows police to hold suspects in a terrorist investigation for 28 days before having to charge or release them.

But since suicide bomb attacks on London’s transport system in July 2005, which killed 52 travellers and injured several hundred more, police have been pushing for the 42-day period.

Brown said in the letter the extension was justified by the increase in number, scope and complexity of terrorist plots under investigation.

“In 1997, 19 mobile phones, one computer and seven computer disks were seized in terrorist investigations. In 2006, 1,620 mobile phones, 353 computers and 2,541 computer disks were seized,” he wrote.

Investigations in 2004 into Dhiren Barot, the head of an al Qaeda plot to carry out bomb attacks in Britain, involved the seizure of 270 computers and 2,000 disks as well as inquiries in seven other countries, Brown noted.

Barot was jailed in November 2006 for a minimum of 30 years.

Brown, who took over from Tony Blair last June after a decade as Chancellor, wrote that British security services were investigating 2,000 terrorist suspects, 30 plots and 200 organised terrorist networks.

To try to win support from party members who fear that under Brown’s leadership they will lose their seats in the next election that is due within two years, he has offered parliamentary and legal oversight of individual cases.

(Editing by Alison Williams)

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

June 6, 2008

Time runs out! Should this happen with no evidence?

Time runs out!

Family await appeal verdict
Family await appeal verdict

Published Date: 06 June 2008

A COCKROACH-INFESTED cell in a tough Arizona jail could be home to Bo’ness businessman Brian Howes for three years as he awaits trial in the United States.
This week, Scottish justice minister Kenny MacAskill gave his approval to demands that Mr and Mrs Howes should be extradited to the United States.

Mr Howes is appealling that decision. If the appeal fails he could be in an American jail within 28 days.

The father of six then faces a lifetime behind bars if claims he illegally supplied chemicals which are used to create the deadly illegal drug crystal meth are substantiated.

Also facing a miserable future is Mr Howes’ bride of three months, Kerry-Ann Howes (30).

Mr Howes (44), of Bridgeness Road, told the Journal: “I don’t think either Kerry-Ann or myself is strong enough to withstand the Arizona penal system which is said to have the worst human rights record in the United States.

“Temperatures hit 140° Fahrenheit, there are chain gangs and racism. Saughton prison, where I spent seven months on remand, is a holiday camp in comparison!”

The couple, who have no funds, will have to rely on a public defender to plead their case in the US. That could mean a three-year wait before their case goes to trial.

“Cases taken by the public defender, the equivalent of our legal aid system, are seen as low priority,” said Mr Howes.

“I have it on good authority that, if I had £30,000 to pay our legal costs then, if our appeals fail and we’re extradited, the case could be heard within a year.”

Mr Howes said he did not blame the justice minister for signing the extradition warrant.

“My information is that he was sympathetic towards us but that it was not in his power to refuse,” he said.

Mr Howes insisted no firm evidence has yet been produced to link his businesses with the production of crystal meth in the United States.

He said: “I have asked Kenny MacAskill and Alex Salmond if they would, in an independent Scotland, support an extradition treaty that can see people stand trial without prima facie evidence. I have not had a reply from either of them.”

He went on: “I can’t envisage the damage extradition would do to our whole family.

“Our two youngest children would be take into care and the elder two would also be farmed out. As it is, my bail conditions prevent me from seeing my two children in England.”

Mr and Mrs Howes face 82 charges of supplying chemicals over the internet to people believed to be involved in producing methamphetamine, commonly known as “crystal meth”.

The couple were arrested in January 2007 by officers from Central Scotland Police acting on behalf of the US Drug Enforcement Agency.

At Edinburgh Sheriff Court in April, Sheriff Isabella McColl said she was satisfied the US request met the requirements of the Extradition Act. The court heard claims that chemicals supplied by the couple were traced to more than 80 illegal laboratories in the US.

The court was also told that, between August 2004-06, the couple’s business was alleged to have supplied 653lb of red phosphorous and 97lb of iodine to the US.

Use of methamphetamine can lead to depression, paranoia, violent behaviour, kidney failure and internal bleeding.

Mr Howes has a son, Ryan (11), and daughter, Jessica (9), in England from a previous relationship.

He and Kerry-Ann, who were married in Bo’ness Registry Office just days before they learned that they were to be extradited, have two children, Ellie (5) and Leela (2).

Mrs Howes has two daughters, Denni (10) and Bethany (9) from a previous relationship.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Major comes out against 42-day detention

Bad news for the government in the Times this morning as Sir John Major speaks out against plans to extend the limit terror suspects can be held without charge to 42 days.

The former Tory PM believes the move will merely help terrorist recruitment and brands the government’s case for increasing the time limit as “bogus” and “scaremongering”.

Such fierce criticism will dent ministers’ confidence ahead of the crucial Commons vote on the matter next Wednesday.

Party chiefs had hoped that home secretary Jacqui Smith’s barnstorming performance at a meeting of parliamentary Labour party earlier this week, when she outlined a number of “amendments” (aka concessions) to the counter-terrorism bill, had done enough to neutralise the threat of a damaging government defeat.

But the report in today’s Times suggests that the outcome of the vote – being seen as Gordon Brown’s biggest parliamentary test to date – could hang on the support of nine Democratic Unionist MPs.

In an interview with the Spectator, the home secretary insists the government will win.

“I don’t think the government could fall over this,” she says. “I think if it was turned into a vote of confidence there would be massive support of the government; I don’t think it would be a problem.”

Not the most ringing endorsement of the power of the man once dubbed a “big clunking fist”.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.