NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm sick of being told by Americans to not criticise Bush, and to focus on some of Europe's problems. Hence, this thread.

David Blunkett, The home Secretary of Britain has introduced a number of controversial reforms and proposals, including but by no means confined to:

compulsary I.D cards for all citizens of the UK, and fines for people not carrying them at all times. Said cards will include retinal scans and fingerprints of the holder

The tracking of criminals released from prison with satellites that monitor chips implanted in their body

The use of polygraphs (lie detector tests) upon released sex offenders to ask if they are reoffending

Increasing the powers of the police to arrests anyone for suspicion of any crime in the street, a step up from the current system of usually only arresting people in the street for crimes which carry penalties of 5 years or more jail time

A bill to prevent criminals recieving lottery wins. A convicted rapist upon day release recently legally purchased a lottery ticket and won £8 million pounds. Minister Teressa Jowell proclaimed it to be "benefitting from the proceeds of crime" upon the today programme on the BBC and pledged to do everything in her legal power to strip him of his winnings, a motion supported by David Blunkett

Now, to keep this as fair as possible I've done my level best to try to keep my own views out of this one and only present the facts. So, what do we all think? Has Blunkett finally gone too far?

A bill to prevent criminals recieving lottery wins. A convicted rapist upon day release recently legally purchased a lottery ticket and won £8 million pounds. Minister Teressa Jowell proclaimed it to be "benefitting from the proceeds of crime" upon the today programme on the BBC and pledged to do everything in her legal power to strip him of his winnings, a motion supported by David Blunkett

I don't think you get it. Recently released inmates are allowed to bet. They're just not allowed to win.

You also missed out the possibility of there being a "retrospective clause" in a new bill on this.

Petty populism at its worst. But hey, it is not as if theft is a concept alien to the Government.
Now, to keep this as fair as possible I've done my level best to try to keep my own views out of this one and only present the facts. So, what do we all think? Has Blunkett finally gone too far?

Yes, but he could go futher.

Know about the recent exention of powers he has given the police?

He is also considering legitslation to deal with demonstrations outside Parliament (prize for anyone who can guess which particular part).

I thought they sounded good, I wish they would do it over here in America.

He also wanted to change the name of the prison service from HM Prison Service to Something not mentioning the Queen, that really p*ssed me off!

i really really really hate him!

Oh and also he wanted to charge people who were wrongfully put in jail and later released because they're innocent for rent and food!

Oh and also he wanted to charge people who were wrongfully put in jail and later released because they're innocent for rent and food!


Really? HA! That's a pretty tight little scheme. Funds running low? Just go out and arrest some people and soon you'll be raking in the dough.

Still, I guess it's good to know that governmental idiocy knows no borders.

Oh and also he wanted to charge people who were wrongfully put in jail and later released because they're innocent for rent and food!

yeah I heard about that! now thats thinking outside teh box.

I thought I read something about Florida trying to imitate that.

Ahh, the Home Secretary Mr Blunkett, what a guy...

I'm working on a Phd in a politics on the relationship between surveillance and liberal democracy. I've also just finished writing up my Masters dissertation on some stuff related to mental health politics in the UK. David Blunkett's name comes up a lot in the stuff I'm working on, and rarely positively.

I've got the governments consultation papers on increasing police powers sitting on my desk, waiting for me to write a commentary on it. I've only glanced through it as yet, and read the media commentary on it, but it doesnt look very cheery at all.

as previously mentioned, the making every offense arrestable is worrying, especially when it links up with an expansion in the number of things that count as an offense...

there are provisions for making it an offense to protest outside somebody's house. Now if passed, that essentially makes protesting in any residential area an offense... then an arrestable offense..

Also, I've also acquired the report of the house of commons select committee on ID cards. This is the committee tasked with looking at what the home office is intending to do. Basically their report says that whilst they understand objections on principle, they themselves do no oppose ID cards on this manner. But they do say that the government is not being at all transparent when it comes to putting out practical details of how such a massive and complex system is actually going to work, or how much it is going to cost. They belive that an ID card system will change the relationship betwen individuals and the state in a fundamental manner.

Actually, we shouldnt be worrying about the ID cards themselves, it's the integrated database that we should be worrying about...

also blunkett and the home office are driving the proposed reform of the 1983 mental health act so as to allow compulsory treatment of mentally ill people in the community and also to allow people to be locked up for having 'dangerous severe personality disorder' a category that isnt accepted by the psychiatric profession as far as I know. This whole thing has kicked up a shitstorm in the mental health community but isnt getting a lot of public attention

try www.madpride.org for a little more information. or perhaps www.mha.org
(those might be .org.uk)

there are provisions for making it an offense to protest outside somebody's house. Now if passed, that essentially makes protesting in any residential area an offense... then an arrestable offense..

so? if it is so skewed as to so it can be interrupted to expan past residential property, then it's wrong, other wise, stay the hell away from people private residences

well currently it's at the consultation stage, so it's more in the form of a proposal than spelled out legislation. So this is a stage where the might be the opportunity to push it away from a broader interpretation.

set in context, it's in there as a counter to various animal-rights protestors that have been harrassing employees of companies or labs that do animal-testing. Without getting into the rights and wrongs of that issue, what these people have been doing is already covered under other crimes, for example, harrasment or breach of the peace. It's an example of more legislation being created when the criminal activity is already covered.

also blunkett and the home office are driving the proposed reform of the 1983 mental health act so as to allow compulsory treatment of mentally ill people in the community and also to allow people to be locked up for having 'dangerous severe personality disorder'
This beg the question, does wanting to make everything that is not compulsory forbidden a 'dangerous severe personality disorder.'

He also wanted to change the name of the prison service from HM Prison Service to Something not mentioning the Queen, that really p*ssed me off!

i really really really hate him!
Ye gods. Britain might not have everything in it bearing the Queens name.

Really? HA! That's a pretty tight little scheme. Funds running low? Just go out and arrest some people and soon you'll be raking in the dough.

Still, I guess it's good to know that governmental idiocy knows no borders.
Idiocy? Personally I think that Blunkett is too calculating for this to be idiocy.

Blunket should be an american! he can run my state if he wants

Oh and also he wanted to charge people who were wrongfully put in jail and later released because they're innocent for rent and food!

This isn't something Blunkett wants to do -- it's something that already happens:

Link (http://www.sundayherald.com/40592)

Blunket should be an american! he can run my state if he wants
You can have him.

This isn't something Blunkett wants to do -- it's something that already happens:

Link (http://www.sundayherald.com/40592)
We should just get rid of the law all together and give him a new title "Supreme Arbitrator of the Law." No longer will we have to rely on benefit of the doubt, innocent until proven guilty or trial by jury. Citizens will be put into two categories, guilty and not guilty yet (or not found out). Sadie will sniff terrorists out, no matter how hard they try to hide. Win the lottery? give it back please, if you have ever been charged with a crime nothing good can ever happen to you again. Who cares if the numbers are random. You are not entitled to your winnings unless you are a poor or afflicted with some incurable and terminal disease. You can say what you want, but you are a terrorist.

Forget all that rubbish about free will and creating you're own destiny, Blunkett will tell you what you are guilty of and charge you for it. Even if those liberal Judges found out you were innocent, you just managed to burn the evidence. From you're cell.

yeah I heard about that! now thats thinking outside teh box.

I thought I read something about Florida trying to imitate that.
They could do it in Texas. If someone is fried and then found out to be innocent, the family could pay for the electricity.

We should just get rid of the law all together and give him a new title "Supreme Arbitrator of the Law." No longer will we have to rely on benefit of the doubt, innocent until proven guilty or trial by jury. Citizens will be put into two categories, guilty and not guilty yet (or not found out). Sadie will sniff terrorists out, no matter how hard they try to hide. Win the lottery? give it back please, if you have ever been charged with a crime nothing good can ever happen to you again. Who cares if the numbers are random. You are not entitled to your winnings unless you are a poor or afflicted with some incurable and terminal disease. You can say what you want, but you are a terrorist.

Forget all that rubbish about free will and creating you're own destiny, Blunkett will tell you what you are guilty of and charge you for it. Even if those liberal Judges found out you were innocent, you just managed to burn the evidence. From you're cell.

Poor old Sadie. Can you imagine being strapped to Blunkett every day of your life? God help her if she piddles on the floor. I'm sure David wouldn't stop at just rubbing her nose in it, that's for sure.

Poor old Sadie. Can you imagine being strapped to Blunkett every day of your life? God help her if she piddles on the floor. I'm sure David wouldn't stop at just rubbing her nose in it, that's for sure.
Bit tired at the moment (and therefore a bit slow). But, do you mean literally or metaphorically?

Or did it just skim the top of my head?

Bit tired at the moment (and therefore a bit slow). But, do you mean literally or metaphorically?

Or did it just skim the top of my head?

I was meaning satirically. If Sadie piddles on the floor of the house (as opposed to on the Floor of the House, where presumably it would be dealt with by a bloke in a wig and tights) then traditional notions of dog punishment would lead to rubbing her nose in it. I'm sure David would feel that this is too soft.

It probably wasn't worth it, but hey -- I'm not long out of bed. let me get another cup of coffee and I'll try again.

Why doesn't he just change his name to Stalin, turn Britain into a Police State and be done with it?

Blunket is one in a recent line of mad cap hard on crime Home Secretaries...

But he does put the rest to shame.

gah