What freedoms have we lost since 9/11 ?

[Stephen]

Can anyone tell me what ''freedoms' ( Acts of parliment etc.. ) We have lost in the UK & US since the 9-11 attacks, because when poeple ask me about 9-11 & 7/7 I can tell them that its part of the agenda to take away there Freedoms, but I need to get street wise about how many have gone and what there Freedoms were ?

[Garcon Warrior]

Here are some that have been taken away in America since 9/11.

http://www.nyclu.org/pdfs/eroding_liberty.pdf

[Andrew Johnson]

Google

RIP (Regulation of Investigative Powers)
LRR
SOCA
28 day detention without trial (asked for 90 days)

[Mark Gobell]

Hello Stephen - welcome to the forum.

This site lists the new legislation introduced by Bliars "government".

http://www.trevor-mendham.com/civil-liberties/new-labour/index.html

The site also discusses the forthcoming ID cards with links to relevant sites.

http://www.trevor-mendham.com/civil-liberties/index.html

The Human Rights group Liberty have a briefing here:

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/resources/publications/pdf-docu ments/anti-terrornew.pdf

Read it and weep.

[Mark Gobell]

Stephen

This is a recent real life example of Bliars new Britain:

"The letter of the SOCPA law"

Another report via Indymedia by rikki

It is frightening that you can be arrested by the Metropolitan Police, for trying to deilver a Letter to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner at New Scotland Yard, about the refusal of a policeman at Charing Cross police station, to accept a properly written notice to Apply for Permissioin to Demonstrate, as per the letter of the the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 section 133 Notice of demonstrations in designated area

(5) A notice under this section must be given by-
(a) delivering it to a police station in the metropolitan police district, or
(b) sending it by post by recorded delivery to such a police station.

(6) Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30) (under which service of a document is deemed to have been effected at the time it would be delivered in the ordinary course of post) does not apply to a notice under this section.



Steve Jago is the man who was arrested for carrying an article from the mainsteam glossy Vanity Fair magazine which is edited by Guardian columnist Henry Porter, whose article describing this travesty in the Independent (" Blair laid bare: the article that may get you arrested") , helped to get Charity Sweet to be "suspected" of something and stopped and searched outside Downing Street in Whitehall.

"The police told Mr Jago this was 'politically motivated' material, and suggested it was evidence of his desire to break the law.

I kid you not.

Being in posession of Vanity Fair articles criticising Bliar are now considered politically "subversive" and evidence that you intend to break the law.

Steve Jago's letter:


18 July 2006
Sir Ian Blair
Commissioner of police for the metropolis
New Scotland Yard
Broadway
London
SW1H 0BG

Dear Commissioner,

At approximately 7.15pm on the 17th July 2006, a gentleman by the name of Mr Sinha delivered to Charing Cross police station a notice of demonstration, same as attached but completed, as required by section 133 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (C.15) (Socpa 2005). I witnessed this and was very concerned to see the officer on the desk, CX 695, actively seek to refuse to accept the notice.

Mr Sinha had properly delivered the notice ‘to a police station in the metropolitan police district’ in accordance with section 133, sub-section 5(a) of Socpa 2005 as witnessed by myself and several others. At around 7.15pm, Mr Sinha placed both sheets of the notice (printed on A4 paper) on the officer’s side of the desk window after the officer, CX 695, had walked off just after clarifying that he was refusing the notice, giving as his excuse for this appalling behaviour that it was not requested on an application form.

I hope that I don’t have to remind you, notice is not required to be on the metropolitan police’s own ‘application form’. I would like your assurance that this notice has not been ‘lost’ by your officers and that you will be fulfilling the duty placed on you by section 134, sub-section 6 of Socpa 2005 by giving ‘notice in writing’ of the authorisation to Mr Sinha in order that he does not suffer any further injustices.

I would also like an assurance from yourself that this notice has been received and written notice of authorisation given. I look forward to hearing from you, if you have any further queries regarding this matter please do not hesitate to let me know.


Steve Jago
Witness



If this Kafkauesque police state bureaucracy was happening in some far off tinpot dictatorship, it would be bad enough, but this is happening now, in London, in the shadow of the supposed "Mother of Parliaments".

Do the Labour MPs who voted for this stupidy feel no sense of shame and embarrassment ?

Neither the Home Office, nor the Metropolitan Police appear to be "fit for purpose" when it comes to defending our freedoms and liberties and rights to peaceful protest and freedom of assembly and freedom of thought. Why are they appeasing the terrorists who want to destroy these freedoms ?

Source: http://www.spy.org.uk/parliamentprotest/2006/07/

The offending Independent article by Henry Porter: Blair Laid Bare is here:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece

[Pincher]

[Alek]

[spiv]

Alec states "The most important reason for privacy, especially financial privacy, is protection against a tyrannical government."

I am an accountant by profession, and in March 2004 this Government introduced Money Laundering regulations, whereby any accountant, lawyer, estate agent, financial advisor and other person in the "regulated sector" must report even suspicion of proceeds of any crime to SOCA, no matter how small that crime is. Now I have no problem with this if I should stumble across a real terrorist, drugs smuggler or peddler of child porn.

However, I do have a problem if someone mentions "that pirated video", or the "fiddle" on their expenses, or that pen he/she "brought home" from work, because, under the excuse of the "war on terror", this nonsense was enacted by Bliar's government (just like they propose ID cards). Most other countries have a de-minimus level of around £10,000 below which no report has to be done. Bliar could not do that, there is no lower limit, so a crime of 1 penny should be reported. If that accountant, lawyer or whomever fails to report, or turns a 'blind eye', then he/she could get five years imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. He/she also faces imprisonment if he/she should 'tip off' that person that a report was being made.

So be very very careful what you say to your insurance advisor, estate agent, solicitor, banker etc etc. The 'secret police' are already in existence in this country, albeit they have been press-ganged into the task.

Many, like myself, are outraged at being made to do this, but you won't hear it on the BBC news, and I don't even believe that many people outside the professions know about it. Check it out on the SOCA website.

And on another matter, you may have heard on the news about the three National Westminster executives extradited to America a few weeks ago under the anti-terrorism laws. They are not even accused of terorism, they are accused of fraud, not even done in America. Yet it is the abuse of anti-terrorism legislation which has enabled the American government to extradite these men far from their homes and families!!

Police state, it's here and now, and getting worse, unless the ordinary citizens of the world hold our politicians accountable.

[spiv]

And another thing we seem to be losing in the so called "war on terrorism", the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. Only today the Bank of England has released publicly the names of 19 of the "alleged terrorists".

These chaps have not even been charged, but they are being tried by media and hysteria, with the Government's own blessing and collaboration!!!

This is under new criminal/money-laundering powers of the State. Appalling, and Blunckett, I believe, was to blame for this particular erosion of our freedoms.