It really was a good day to bury bad news.

As the press went into overdrive about the vote to permit gay marriage, a House of Commons committee quietly axed amendments to the Justice and Security Bill that would have made it less damaging to your freedom.

This is the controversial Bill to allow ‘secret courts’ in the UK, so cases that are potentially embarrassing to government can be held behind closed doors.

As it now stands, defendants – or claimants in civil cases – will be excluded from the hearings where their fates will be decided. They will not be allowed to know or challenge the details of the case against them and will have to be represented by a security-cleared special advocate, rather than their own lawyer.

Are alarm bells ringing in your head yet?

Apparently the Bill has been drafted in close co-operation with the security services, who have claimed other countries may stop sharing intelligence with Britain if it risks being disclosed in open court. Clearly the intention is to deal with terrorism cases but there is no necessary limit to the possibilities.

The House of Lords had amended the Bill last November after concerns were raised about the threat to civil liberties. The changes would have meant judges could only grant secret hearings – or ‘Closed Material Procedures’ (CMPs) – if other alternatives like the existing system of public interest immunity had been ruled out.

A call to permit such hearings only after balancing the government’s call for it against the ancient legal principles of open justice was also thrown out.

Secret hearings could now become the default in cases where the existing system for fairly handling sensitive material could instead have been used.

Human rights organisations Amnesty International, JUSTICE, Liberty and Reprieve have condemned the changes, which mean secret material – never disclosed to the claimant, let alone the public or the press – would routinely be used to defend serious allegations.

In other words, if this Bill becomes law, the government would be able to do anything it likes, to anyone it likes, under a veil of secrecy. It’s a clear contradiction of the Conservative Party’s own pre-election commitment to a far more open and accountable Parliament, and also of the Coalition Agreement, which stated: “The Government believes that we need to throw open the doors of public bodies, to enable the public to hold politicians and public bodies to account.”

But don’t just take my word for it. Amnesty International UK Head of Policy and Government Affairs, Allan Hogarth, had this to say: ““If the Bill becomes law we will end up with victims of human rights violations being prevented from seeing secret evidence against them and even being prevented from talking to their own lawyers.

“It’s ludicrous and totally contrary to basic principles of open justice.”

The government says the Bill is perfectly safe because the final decision on whether to hold proceedings in secret will be up to the judge.

And we all know that they are entirely beyond reproach.

Right?

FTP!
.

The Apprentice wrote:

British rights group Amnesty International and legal charity Reprieve have condemned the ratification of the governments’ secret courts plan in the House of Lords as a “terrible day for British justice”.


The Labour party had tabled amendments to the government’s Justice and Security Bill, otherwise known as “secret courts” proposals, that allows sensitive intelligence to be presented to a judge by officials while preventing victims and claimants from knowing the allegations against them in full.

The amendment sought to ensure that the extension of Closed Material Procedures (CMPs) under the secret courts plan to civil cases would only happen if a judge ruled that reaching a fair verdict was impossible “by any other means”.

However, the Lords rejected the amendment with a majority of only 16 (174 to 158) votes paving the way for the hugely-controversial plan to become law within a few weeks.

"This is a terrible day for British justice. After fierce lobbying by the government, peers have failed to restore even minimal amendments previously included to this deeply damaging bill,” said Tim Hancock, Amnesty International's UK campaigns director.

“The cherished and vitally important principle that justice must be done and seen to be done has been dealt a serious blow this evening,” he added.

His comments were echoed by Reprieve executive director Clare Algar who said the secret courts will “do irreparable damage” to Britain’s reputation.

"It is deeply shameful that the government has been allowed to push these plans through parliament, despite the total lack of evidence that they are needed. Secret courts will … do irreparable damage to our reputation as a country which respects fair play and the rule of law,” she said.

British officials claim the Justice and Security Bill is designed to protect national security by preventing confidential information from being exposed.

However, Amnesty said in an earlier report that the plan simply gives the government the power to "simply play the 'national security' card whenever it wants to keep things secret".

The British government now only needs the Queen’s assent to formally unveil the secret courts as a new law.

I think the term "police state" is rather misleading. It implies that Plod have control.
A more apt term would be "complete bunch of cunts who most of you will never even hear of doing what the fuck we want and screw the fucking lot of you if you dare to even question it, cos we'll fucking well disappear you, ha ha ha ha ha ha, state".

A friend doesn't let a friend become a cop.

knobmeup wrote:
Whose first line of defence against the plebs is.......?

A friend doesn't let a friend become a cop.

What have we missed knobs? I know you always had more patience than I could ever muster when dealing with them but....since your res-erection (I had to do that pun) you seem a little too soft on 'em!

You found a dealer more reliable than any other?