Now here's a strange thing.
Some people have been uncharitable enough to refer to former Home Secretary Charles Clarke as 'the safety elephant'. But what's odd about it is this: if you Google just for the name "Clarke", he doesn't even appear on the first page of hits.
However, if you Google for 'Clarke "safety elephant"' the top hit you get is the page for Mr Clarke on the Labour Party's own website.
Of course, the page is not so cruel as to refer to Mr Clarke by that phrase... so how does Google know which 'Clarke' we're looking for, based on those search arguments?
Surely the Party's own webmaster hasn't embedded the phrase 'safety elephant' invisibly in the web page?
Posted by racingsnake
@ 06:00 PM GMT+00:00
[
Comments [3]
]
This article in the Daily Telegraph (contextual data for non-UK readers... the Telegraph, sometimes referred to as the 'Torygraph' is a right-of-centre broadsheet) gives some of the details of the recently-quashed control orders.
Here are some of the terms of the control orders mentioned:
- 5 of the 6 subjects were 'required to live in one-bed apartments at Home Office-designated addresses away from their home areas, under curfew conditions from 4pm to 10am, with restricted phone and internet access;
- they were forbidden from meeting people without prior notice, and visitors had to provide, in advance, their name, address, date of birth and photo ID;
- their lodgings were subject to search at any time by the authorities.
There was no appeal mechanism available to the subjects.
Bear in mind that these individuals had been arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and released without charge. One justification advanecd for the control orders was that they are 'preventive, not punitive'. It's hard to see how the collective measures outlined above can be described as 'not punitive'.
The judge clearly agreed, ruling that the conditions of the control orders were so stringent as to breach the Human Rights Convention.
Interestingly, he also ruled that the Home Secretary had no power to make the orders... so there's an objection on legislative grounds as well as on grounds of human rights.
Posted by racingsnake
@ 10:03 AM GMT+00:00
![[RSS Newsfeed]](/themes/sotto/images/valid-rss.png)
![[This is a Roller site]](/themes/sotto/images/roller-logo.gif){kind=logo}