Innocent Presumed Guilty?

I wrote and sent the below submission to my local MP, Martin Linton, regarding the scandal of innocent people who have had their lives wrecked by changes to the Criminal Record Bureau checking system.

Basically, since around 2005, people who have been acquitted or who are otherwise not guilty of any crime can nonetheless have their lives and careers blighted by false and slanderous allegations that can be repeated by police on Enhanced Disclosure CRB checks.

This is a consequence of change to the law that was brought in as a knee jerk reaction to a high profile murder case. It was badly thought out and has been even more badly executed by the police. The Government is not currently being effectively pressed to change the law as too few people are aware of it or are willing to speak out (other than its victims, of course!):

‘Enhanced Disclosure’ CRB checks and affects on innocent people

Issue:

Enhanced Disclosure Criminal Record Bureau checks were introduced following the Soham murders to address the perceived failure of Government agencies to coordinate intelligence.

Enhanced Disclosure means that unproven ‘intelligence’ against an individual can be disclosed by police to a prospective employer, regardless of whether there is any evidence to substantiate the claim in law.

This has resulted in single, unproven,allegations being disclosed to potential employers and people who are innocent of any crime are being deprived of their livelihoods and their dignity.

Government dismisses criticism by saying that ‘child protection is paramount’. While no-one could argue with child protection being paramount, this need not be at the expense of destroying innocent people.

Child protection should be complementary to, not be mutually exclusive with, a free society governed by the rule of law.

The Enhanced CRB system is unjust in its current form and requires urgent Parliamentary scrutiny and reform.

1. Background:
   

1. Ian Huntley had previously been investigated in relation to one allegation of indecent assault, four allegations of underage sex, three allegations of rape and one charge of burglary. Only the latter reached Court and subsequently appeared on the Police National Computer at the specific order of the trial Judge.


2. In the wake of the Huntley trial the Government decided to amend the Criminal Records Bureau checks system so as to allow ‘non-conviction data’, i.e. information relating to not-guilty verdicts and unfounded allegations, to be shared with potential employers.
3. The change was intended to allow Chief Constables to share information where a ‘pattern’ of intelligence had emerged that, while each allegation might fall short
   of the requirements of criminal proof, the overall pattern could be reasonably taken into consideration before allowing a person to work with children or vulnerable adults.
4. However, the law was broadly drafted and left a great deal of discretion to civil servants drafting guidance and to the police force. This has resulted in sloppy guidance
   and arbitrary implementation with the disclosure of single, unproven,
   serious allegations against individuals.
5. The current system effectively allows the police and employers to act as judge, jury and executioner on criminal charges relating to child protection. The Courts, and the rule of law, have been done away with.
6. This produces an abhorrent situation where people who have been acquitted in a Court of Law, or had allegations against them dropped because of the absence of evidence, are being de facto summarily convicted on the basis of a single serious allegation.
7. The most obvious example of this is where a false allegation is made against a teacher and that teacher’s career is ruined because any future employer will be
   informed of the allegation on the CRB check; there isn’t even a formal appeals procedure against the disclosure of hear-say (see Annex 2).
8. However, there are other examples;
   hundreds of people who were wrongly accused of child pornography
   offences in the ‘Operation Ore’, while being innocent of any
   crime, are effectively barred from working with children or vulnerable
   adults because these false allegations will be disclosed to a prospective
   employer on an Enhanced Disclosure check (see Annex 4).
9. Due to the UK system of Parliamentary Sovereignty, the Courts are not in a position to amend or otherwise ‘fix’ the underlying problems in the CRB system as it stands (see Annex 3).
10. When challenged, the Government would seem to argue that ‘innocent until proven guilty’ should take second place to ‘child protection’. This emotive argument does not stand-up to scrutiny since the two concepts are not incompatible; prosecute and convict the guilty but do not accept gossip as evidence and respect the acquittal of the innocent.
    

2. Action requested of Martin Linton MP:

1. As a private citizen I have no voice at all; if I were to write direct to a Minister I would be summarily dismissed with a standard letter from junior officials who wouldn’t even bother to take the time to read what I had said.


2. Questioning any policy that hides behind ‘will somebody think of the children!’ is not popular, but it is sometimes the right thing to do.


3. I am therefore asking you to look into this matter personally and to raise my concerns with the relevant Ministers. I am happy for you to pass this letter on to Ministerial
   colleagues.
   

3. Key points to make:
   

1. We are dealing with fundamental principles of a Just society governed by rule of law. We must not allow the UK to travel any further down the road of a Police State.
2. Child protection and the rule of law are not mutually exclusive. In the specific instance of the Huntley case, the failing was that of the police and Crown Prosecution Service,
   who failed to bring Huntley to justice earlier despite ample opportunity.
3. The original intent of the Enhanced Disclosure system was to allow patterns of intelligence to be taken into account. In practice the change has resulted in single
   unproven allegations being used to damage innocent people.
4. ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ should be a non-negotiable fundamental of our society.
   It should not be trimmed for the sake of expedience.
5. The burden of proof should lie with the accuser, not the accused. It is not for the accused to prove their innocence to a potential employer but for the accuser to prove the guilt of the accused in a Court of Law.
6. Hear-say and unfounded allegation are no substitutes for proven evidence.
7. The police service is an enforcement and investigation agency, not part of the judiciary. It is not for the police to decide guilt or innocence; this is for the courts.
8. Innocent people are having their careers and lives wrecked by unfounded allegations. This could happen to anyone and it is not acceptable in a free society governed by laws.
9. The Government should remember that children can be falsely accused of crimes, and that children grow into adult citizens with families of their own who, under the current
   arrangements, can have their lives at that of their families wrecked by unproven allegations.
10. This intolerable situation is being tolerated because criticism is being shouted down by a shrill cry of ‘will somebody think of the children!’ Speaking out against
    such injustice has almost become a taboo in itself.

Undies by Post?

No, not a post about the burgeoning and semi-illicit trade in used underwear via ebay but about an ingenious response on the part of liberal Indians to the oppressive actions of a group of religious puritans (click here for original BBC story)!

There are many clichés to be spouted about India, but one that is definitely worth repeating is that it is a place of extreme diversity and contrast.

As a Westerner, it’s easy to think of India as having at the least the semblance of a homogenous identity; this would suit Hindu nationalists, who are trying to reconstruct India’s past, present and future as a socially conservative, Hindi speaking Hindu state. Unfortunately for Hindu nationalists, this simply isn’t the case.

In terms of its human geography India is at least as diverse as Europe. While the Indian states might not have quite the same sort of Westphalian heritage as their European counterparts (i.e. established histories as sovereign nation states), they are not lacking in their own languages or strong historical identities. In fact the present Republic of India, established in 1947 following the collapse of the British Empire, is the first time that all the states of the Eurasian subcontinent have been joined in a single sovereign state.

The diversity between India’s states is fairly easy to get to grips with. A cursory look at India’s post-war history reveals the fissures of language, religion and identity that have frayed and occasionally ripped the fabric of the political map of India; the partition of India and Pakistan and the two states’ proxy wars over Bangladesh and disputed Kashmir.

However, diversity and conflict run much deeper than relatively simple geographical fissures. India has never undergone the same sort of sustained and comprehensive transition to modernity endured by the West, though it has often been subject to this experience via the proxy of Western imperialism.

The European experience of the transition to modernity was as marked by the 100 years war as much as the renaissance, or by the gas chambers of Auschwitz or the ethnic cleansing of Eastern Europe by the Red Army as the foundation of the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

One product of the successive bloodbaths and bouts of persecution in Europe has been the creation of a system relatively homogenous, mature nation-states. These states have, by necessity, educated and developed their population en masse and have subsequently worked through resulting social conflicts and tensions between illiberal reactionaries and progressive forces who use past liberal developments to lever greater spaces for personal freedom.

India, on the other hand, has imported European modernity but in doing so the effects have been more greatly differentiated than in the West, where the phenomena took place organically. The educated urban young are part of a global post-modernity where sovereignty stems from the individual and not the collective, whereas the poorly educated, rural communities and the old are often trapped by pre-modern conceptions of what society should be (e.g. Islamic fundamentalist or conservative Hindu nationalist). The space between these post-modern and almost pre-modern groups is comparable to the more easily grasped space between Europe and India overall.

This particular story, about young women being attacked on camera for drinking in a pub provides a simultaneously amusing and alarming illustration of this diversity and conflict within an India that has been developing along different tracks and at markedly different speeds.

Alarmingly, the conduct of the Hindu nationalists in question, members of the Sri Ram Sena Hindu nationalist group, cannot be simply written off as ‘extreme’. Even within the literate and relatively empowered Indian online community, opinion on their actions relative to that of the ‘loose morals’ of young women in bars will probably be shockingly mixed to the liberal Western observer; in the wake of the murder of Scarlett Keeling, a 15 year old British girl, in Goa, international discussion on the British Daily Mail website was over-flowing with disgust, indignation and blame levelled at the deceased girl and her mother for having such low morals as to be somehow responsible for the crime itself!

Amusingly, liberal elements in India have responded to the bar attacks in a manner that should be an inspiration for liberals in the West who are besieged by authoritarian bigotry within and without of their governments; using Facebook to marshal a campaign to deliver large quantities of pink underwear to the doors of the Sri Ram Sena headquarters! Perhaps campaigners in the UK should adopt such direct tactics, but then I expect that would fall foul of some ‘Anti Terrorism’ law?

At the outset of writing this article I was thinking that the gap between progressive liberals and reactionary conservatives in India is much greater than that in the West. However, after reading the Daily Mail's article on the Scarlett Keeling murder, and the comments of Daily Mail readers, I'm no longer so sure. The difference in India is more marked, due to the differences in traditional versus modern dress, or because religion features more prominently across the divide, but in terms of narrow minded bigots versus open minded liberals, there isn't really all that much difference.

Petition to Amend s63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act

You can view and sign my petition right now by clicking here!

My earlier explanatory note for this petition mysteriously disappeared from TheThirdRepublic, so I'm going to replace it with this shorter, holding, note.

Basically, the Government has recently brought into force a law that is badly written and could be used by the police to criminalise consenting adults for looking at other consenting adults doing things that are perfectly legal! For example, the legislation specifically criminalises the viewing of parts of mainstream Hollywood films outside of an approved context (careful with that remote!).

In short the Government has produced a 'thought crime', pure and simple. It came about because David Blunkett, the then Home Secretary, decided to adopt a piece of knee jerk populist legislation in response to a high profile murder. The legislation was pushed under the public radar by dishonest MPs lying to the media about what the law actually is; Martin Salter, the law's backbench champion, persists in claiming that the law is about 'snuff' movies (films of real people being killed) whereas the law is expressly about a much wider range of images where no one was actually injured and full consent is present (i.e. acting!).

Ironically, my proposed amendment would change the law so that it is actually consistent with the rhetoric of Martin Salter MP as it would change the law to ensure that this legislation can only be used to target people who actually seek out and collect images of real abuse - i.e. images of (a) real serious violence and / or (b) images where there really is no consent.

Similar amendments had been proposed by Baroness Miller in the House of Lords, but rejected out of hand by the Government, which was concerned that the need to prove real culpability could make it hard for them to convict people!

Make up your own mind on the evidence! You can view and sign my petition here.

You can find more information about why I oppose this law on the Backlash site here. You can also get involved in protecting the sexual freedoms of consenting adults through the Consenting Adult Action Network.

Shortage of Social Workers? What a surprise!

Writing about this article on BBC online.

I find it amazing that the media and Government can stand their scratching their proverbial heads over a crisis that they have been so instrumental in fueling.

As with occasional crocodile tears over the lack of men in nursery and primary education, the lack of applicants willing to undergo the lengthy education and training that its takes to become a social worker is hardly surprising.

Media and Government both shore up their flagging ratings by taking great pleasure in witch hunts and public burnings. While both are impotent to address underlying social and economic shifts in society, whether that's the decline of commercial print and broadcast media or the undermining of Western economies by emerging economic super-powers, they can both stomp their little feet and raise the blood of the mob over a terrible crime - the papers crying out for justice and the Government more than happy to appear to be able to satisfy the mob's blood lust and thus shore up its creaking credibility!

This situation is unlikely to change. For a mass-circulation model newspaper or TV news operation to survive in a world of declining print media circulation and flagging advertising revenues, they can't afford to take anything but the most populist line if they wish to survive. It is no accident that the Daily Mail is the most popular newspaper amongst those who can vaguely read, or that the Sun is the most popular amongst those who cannot. If a newspaper tries to go against this flow of easy, hatefully ignorant, populism then it is going to, at best limp along with a niche readership (The FT or the more champagne-left populist Guardian) go to the wall.

TV news is perhaps even harder up, competing with such instant and banal entertainment as the X-Factor, Big Brother and I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here. stories must be dramatic, simple to understand and above all have good images. No one has time to really discuss or get to grips with the arguments before leaping to an impassioned opinion; even Newsnight has been dumbed down to reach a 'wider', more gleefully ignorant, audience. Radio 4 is perhaps the last bastion of half decent news and current affairs coverage, and that is almost as patchy as it ever was.

Politicians are the same. The man on the street will happily revel in his contempt for the political class, complaining about how they spin and lie, but that same man in the street would choke on his corn flakes if it ever actually came down to voting for a politician that told the truth, who failed to point out easy fixes and had the audacity to expect said-man-in-the-street to take some real responsibility even for the state of the country rather than blame someone else (preferably someone weaker - foreigners, gays, goths, weirdos - anything sufficiently different to be comfortably disliked).

So, ultimately, we can't blame the sad fools trying to justify their existence in Westminster village or the slightly more glitzy world of the media. Ultimately we only have ourselves to blame for failing to take responsibility and insisting on being spoken to by both media and Government as if we were children; it's hardly surprising that Government and media therefore seek to control us by conjuring up images of the bogey man.