Question That: The Community Stasi

A guidance document put out this week by Hazel Blears' Department of Communities has laid out plans for community "tension monitoring", entailing snooping on neighbours and political activists, restrictions on the media, and large-scale data sharing.

All of this in the name of 'community cohesion', one of New Labour's latest buzz phrases (defined in the document (PDF) as "what must happen in all communities to enable different groups of people to get on well together"*) and clearly the latest justification for ratcheting up the surveillance of individuals yet another notch.

As the excellent Spy Blog explains, the crux of the snooping proposals is contained in section 37 of the 'Guidance'. This calls on local authorities to establish a "multi-agency tension monitoring group" incorporating a long list of public sector groups plus representatives from other sectors.

These would collect and share 'qualitative community intelligence', including data on complaints about neighbours and 'political extremism'. That includes 'low levels of trust in local politicians'. Of course, 'political extremism' means whatever the people doing the data-gathering want it to mean (as Spy Blog suggests: "Anybody who disagrees with the Labour government ?").

Do not laugh. This is how totalitarianism starts off - by gradually painting its opponents as extremists, only over time the definition of "extremists" shifts, until suddenly you are an "extremist", simply for questioning the received wisdom - for being 'ideologically incorrect', if you like.

Fabian Tassano wrote his essay 'Surviving in a Mediocracy' at the end of last year. He saw what was coming, and this paragraph from that polemic came immediately to mind as I read the 'Guidance':

"It should be obvious by now, to anyone who cares, that the principle of free speech is being gradually eroded in the West. Either by straightforward ditching, or — more subtly — by redefining it in ways designed to legitimise the prohibition of ideologically incorrect viewpoints." - Fabian Tassano

Like almost every such measure that this Government have brought in, it is wrapped in a shibboleth, but you don't have to look too far to realise how flimsy that rationale for monitoring and collecting data on potential political opponents is.

This, like so many of the other databases and information sharing policies of this Government are open to abuse. The stories that filter through the press are many.
Where anti terror laws such as RIPA are used to spy on and monitor parents who applied for a school place for their children in Bournemouth.

Where is this all taking this country, where is it taking you, the individual taxpayer. Lets look at a scenario of what happens when databases and laws are abused by Government.

Lets look at the story of Average Joe Soap, clean, honest living man.

When Joe Soap arrived at his local Jobcentre to look for work, he had little idea of the nightmare that was about to unfold.

Joe, a carpenter by trade, was forced into bankruptcy last year as his costs continued to outstrip his income, and the small firm that he used to run was liquidated, so he needed to find new employment.

Joe had lived in Burnley all his life, he had never been in trouble with the police and had always paid his taxes and VAT, and was feeling confident that he would have no trouble finding new work.

The assistant in the Jobcentre was polite and pleasant and asked Joe lots of questions about his work experience, and eventually asked for his new super database number, printed on the back of his £300 ID card.

To his amazement, the assistant politely advised him that she needed to speak to her supervisor, and left Joe alone at the desk.

A short time later, the supervisor called Joe into his office, where he was met by an officer of the SOCA, cautioned and arrested under Section 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.

Taken to the police station he had his fingerprints, a photograph and DNA sample taken and was then escorted to the interview room and questioned.

It transpires that Joe had been in London 3 weeks earlier, the Police wanted to know why he was there, what he had done in London, who he had seen. They already had pictures of his car taken by ANPR cameras, matched by DVLC and TfL, they knew that he had been in London for 2 days, because they had his credit card statements and had seen his Hotel bill and Congestion Charge payments.

At some stage during his visit to London, Joe and his wife had gone to see the Houses of Parliament, as any first time tourist to London would do, but upon his arrival found that Parliament Square was full of demonstrators, so he and his wife decided to walk along Whitehall and head for Trafalgar square.

At some time during this walk, he had been photographed by the square with the demonstrators.

The Police had also discovered that Joe was a member the Communist Party of Great Britain, a legitimate organisation, but his membership was noted.

They also disclosed that there had been a form incorrectly filled in during his discussions with the HMRC when he closed down his firm, and the questioning began to focus on this.

Why had he lied to the inspectors when his firm went bust. Joe insisted that he had filled in the form correctly, but the police were adamant that the information on the form was incorrect and that a supplementary form was missing, therefore he must have failed to provide it, and an investigation into possible fraud would ensue, despite Joe protesting everything was agreed with HMRC at the time.

Police then wanted to know why he had travelled from Burnley to Oxford the previous month, they had an ANPR log and CCTV footage of his journey from motorway cameras and CCTV in Oxford town centre and the Car Park, and that this was outside of his normal routine.

Joe explained that he had been looking for work, and that someone had told him of work at a company in Oxford, but when he arrived and spoke with them, all the posts had been filled, even though he had arranged the appointment by phone.

The police told him that they had already listened to the phone call, and advised that they found its contents to be ‘suspicious’, as was his journey. No further explanation was given.

Joe appeared before Magistrates the following morning. Police explained that they had conducted exhaustive enquiries, and that in their opinion Joe was a potential threat to his local neighbourhood.

They said that neighbours had been interviewed, some of whom complained that Joe used to start his noisy diesel van up at 6.30 every day when he had been working, and his immediate neighbour who had never particularly liked him, had complained about the noise late at night when he put rubbish out, which was noted as being a crime as rubbish was only collected at 10am.

As Joe and his wife liked to keep themselves to themselves they rarely spoke with the people in their street. Police found this to be suspicious and anti social.

Police advised that they had found extremist material during a search of his home (communist party brochures), had associated with a known criminal in Oxford, and because he had been involved in a bar room brawl 10 years ago, believed that he was potentially violent, so police also requested that he be put on the Violent and Sex Offenders register, and be given a super ASBO, with conditions that he report his movements for the next 2 years to the Police.

So now, because of a misuse of databases and circumstantial links, Joe Soap, clean, honest living man who wanted to find new work to pay the mortgage and his bills, never been in trouble in his life, now has a criminal record, his fingerprints and DNA will stay on file for 100 years, he now has an ASBO which makes it illegal for him to do everyday things that the rest of us can do legally, he is no longer allowed to travel to London, and travel anywhere else in the UK has to be approved by the police, he is on the V&S Offenders register, and his life is under constant supervision.

Joe will never be able to work again, because the CRB check will show his ‘record’, he will never be able to go on an overseas holiday, because he has been refused a passport, because he has a ‘record’, and for a man who has always worked for a living and paid his own way in life, he is now reduced to living on benefits. He has had all his credit cards withdrawn because of an alleged fraud over an incorrect form.

He is shunned everywhere in his home town, because the assistant at the jobcentre, having read his entire file, could not keep her mouth shut and told all her colleagues, who then went on to tell everyone else.

By creating repressive laws, allowing local authorities to spy and collect data on individuals based on hearsay, and building Databases all your eggs are now in one basket and make everyone, absolutely everyone suspicious, be the target of suspicion, and allow the lowest rated civil servant access to your very soul.

I can hear Hazel Blears protesting now that this is not what all these laws are for, but Hazel, please understand, THIS IS HOW THEY WILL BE APPLIED, if not in a dictatorial regime, certainly one in which it is very easy to hit all your targets when the laws are all on your side.

In a Libertarian society, the rights and laws protect the individual from the government.

In a dictatorship, the rights and laws protect the government from the people.

1984 - NuLab blueprint.

• Extensive surveillance network
  No comment necessary - Already in place.
  
• Politically motivated language, newspeak.
  Political correctness, Diversity - Already in place.
  
• Enormous and pointless public sector bureaucracies
  QUANGOs (735 at last count) - Already in place.
  
• Wealth redistribution on a huge scale
  The giro!, tax credits - Already in place.
  
• State compulsively trying to make citizens healthier, while health of population is abysmal.
  5-a-day, obesity, smoking ban - Already in place.
  
• Fighting wars with no objectives
  Iraq - Already in place.
  
• Persecution of political opponents
  Watch this space.