Slowly, oh so slowly, Britain’s judges are rescuing Britain’s values from the
depths to which Tony Blair and his home secretaries plunged them in the
knee-jerk response to terrorism. The acts passed by Jack Straw, David
Blunkett and Charles Clarke from 2000 onwards did not create a British
Guantanamo Bay, but they did signal a shocking collapse in British justice.
The present home secretary, Jacqui Smith, wants to further that collapse.
Last week the Court of Appeal handed down two trenchant verdicts in an attempt
to inject common sense into nonsensical terror laws. One implicitly demanded
an apology and compensation from the government for a wholly innocent
airline pilot imprisoned in 2001 after the police and Crown Prosecution
Service lied to a court that he was the “lead instructor” of the 9/11
hijackers. He had merely been an Algerian who once trained in Florida. Every
shred of evidence appeared to have been fabricated by police in America –
possibly obtained under torture – and used without question by the British
police.
The pilot was released after five months of being treated as a terrorist in
Belmarsh jail, without explanation, apology or even exoneration. His career,
reputation and family were in ruins. The appeal court castigated the police
and Home Office and told the pilot, in effect, to sue them for all he could
get.
These are the same police who, in January this year, arrested six Pakistanis
arriving at Gatwick to prepare the visit of their president, Pervez
Musharraf. They were held for 21 hours “on suspicion of operating or
planning a terrorist activity”. The police claimed they were members of a
sinister group, the PML(Q), possibly responsible for Benazir Bhutto’s
murder. They admitted membership on the grounds that the PML(Q) is the
governing party of Pakistan, which the police refused to believe. These are
the police who are demanding 42-day detention powers.
The second High Court judgment was, in effect, against the 2000 Terrorism Act
itself, notably its section 57 which criminalises the possession of
literature (or a download) that “creates a serious risk to the health and
safety of the public . . . for the purpose of advancing a political cause”.
The act, considered near unenforceable by many lawyers, was voted through by
Labour MPs without batting an eyelid.
Last year the law led to the imprisonment of four students and a schoolboy for
having “extremist material on their computers”. There is no argument that
the stuff was nasty and the students might have fallen into bad company had
they carried out their plan, or possibly fantasy, of going to Pakistan. But
as a solicitor for one of them said, it was like sending someone to prison
for reading Mein Kampf. Their crime, said the trial judge, was that of being
“intoxicated by extremism”. He still imprisoned them.
Intoxicated by extremism better describes the state of mind of the judge Peter
Beaumont, the recorder of London, and much of Britain’s political class. In
sentencing the students, he implied that the possession of inflammatory
material was evidence enough of an intention to inflame, a view to which the
Court of Appeal took strong exception. This suspension of “mens rea”, that
guilt should require an intention to commit a crime, was a feature of all
Blair’s terrorism laws. At one point in 2005 the Home Office was even
drawing up a list of “permissible” terrorisms in past history so academics
would know which they could “glorify and exalt”, probably the most fatuous
piece of drafting in British legal history.
It was on the same basis that a court last July imprisoned Yassin Nassari, a
teacher of Arabic, for possessing plans of how to make a rocket (such as
lurked in many a student rucksack in the 1960s). The judge admitted there
was “nothing to indicate that any actual terrorist use would have been made
[of the material] by anyone”, while the prosecution said merely that Nassari
“knew how to download” and that it was “possible that his research could
have ended up in the hands of individuals and groups willing to put it into
practice”.
Nothing to indicate . . . possible that . . . could have ended up in . . .
such is the casual phraseology of the war on terror. Yet on the basis of
these hypotheticals, Nassari was put away for 3½ years.
Every prediction that Britain’s burgeoning terrorism laws would pollute
justice is vindicated by these cases. The concept of preemptive
imprisonment, like that of preemptive war, should have no place in an open
society. Yet it tallies with revelations last week that ministers, who claim
to be in control of security, no longer regard lawyer/client relations as
sacred and that prison interviews are routinely bugged by the police.
Officers who object, such as the whistleblower Mark Kearney, can expect to
lose their jobs. The authorities now have extraordinary powers to arrest and
convict Britons on evidence that may be tainted by American interrogation
techniques or by the sheer ignorance of the police and security services.
It is to this secret establishment that Smith wants to give discretionary
power to incarcerate suspects without charge for an undecided number of
months. It is this establishment that is still determined not to reveal the
extent of its wiretap activities in court. It is this that has equipped
Britain with the most extensive network of surveillance in the free world.
It is this that intends to computerise the personal, occupational, medical
and family records of the entire nation, on bases that everyone knows will
be insecure.
The customary response is that this drift towards authoritarianism, coupled
with an extension of state discretion, is necessary in the so-called “post
9/11 world”. I do not buy this. The threat from fascism and communism in the
20th century was real. It was war, hot and cold. These ideologies could have
defeated Britain militarily and the threat justified nuclear defence and
some curb on civil liberty.
No serious person can imagine a Britain conquered and ruled by fundamentalist
Islam. It is pure fiction. Any fanatic can set off bombs, as once could the
Irish. The cult of the suicide bomber enhances the menace of explosive
devices and that requires more assiduous policing. But such few bombs as get
through are the price we pay for a free society. Democracy is never a free
lunch.
The claim of ministers that militant Islamism constitutes “a threat to British
values”, let alone to western civilisation, is defeatist nonsense. The
threat to British values at present comes not from militant Islam but from a
hysterical public reaction to it. Elevating a criminal act into a military
and political threat is stupid because counter-productive.
Answering “extremist intoxication” with extremist repression pours petrol on
the flames. The rash of antiterror legislation over the past seven years has
been a panic measure that has led to injustice and fury on the part of far
too many of its victims and their communities. It has been bad law.
I have no problem in getting tough with terrorist conspirators or blatant
trouble-makers, as in refusing entry to undesirable foreign mullahs. I have
no problem in kicking out those who abuse Britain’s ever-generous
hospitality. Nor am I too worried about their fate in being returned to
their country of origin.
In a similar vein, I regard the spread of “faith” multiculturalism in schools,
and all sectarian institutions funded by the state, as an accident waiting
to happen. Look at Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that the antics
engendered by the more rabid forms of multiculturalism can damage urban
communities.
But none of this justifies collapsing the values of justice and fairness on
which British law has long been based. The paradox, espoused by the present
government and mostly unchallenged by the opposition, that defending values
requires infringing them, is unjustified. That habeas corpus must be
restricted, that mens rea must be suspended, that reading and talking and
thinking can be crimes, all are ideas so abhorrent to British people that
one might imagine them the product of an Al-Qaeda plot inside the Home
Office.
This week the only conclusion I can reach is one I would never have predicted.
Thank goodness for judges with the guts to save British values from the
present crop of British politicians.
The big lie from Blair was that terrorism would not be allowed to change the British way of life. The Government's introduction of a police state to Britain, citing to terrorism as the cause, is probably the most frightening change possible. Will it be book-burning next?
Jerry, Gloucestershire, UK
Good article, and rather controversial. I have to say that I find it ironic that the person who forced a lot of this nonsense through has a wife who apparently opposes much of it.
tone, cambridge,
Don't forget that the premise of the new, post cold war bogeyman, Al Qaeda, is that they "hate our freedoms". So it's entirely logical then that our freedoms are eroded instead by our own government instead of some mythical CIA creation. Isn't it?
Mark Gobell, Ware, Herts
SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THE REASON WHY THIS COUNTRY IS BEING TARGETED?
Stop the cause then we would not have to sort out the problems that arise because of policies - 10 years of open door immigration has not helped - We do not have a right to tell other countries what to do - even if we disapprove.
Margaret, Bristol, UK
Either you want the police to try and keep the country safe or you want to give extremists a chance to escape, or worse to hatch their dastartly plots.
If a few people get harshly treated along the way perhaps they should reconsider what makes them so interesting to the police in the first place
David, St Albans, UK
Pablo I believe that your government also has troops in Iraq. it will be interesting to know the judgement of the recently arrested man ,who having in his posssession ' terrorist materials', will be let off as the students were. Or does this just apply to ethnic minorities.
Lizzy, Lincoln, uk
The absolute point is that these laws can be used against anyone. Christian, Jew, Muslim. Say something that the government does not like? Theat to public safety. Write it down? Distribute it? Kiss your freedom goodbye.
No one denies that we face a serious threat.
No one denies that we need laws to deal with that threat.
But one thing must always be remembered and understood: Any law will be misused. That is why we have an independent Judicary. To stop that misuse.
leigh ratcliffe , slough, u.k.
These laws are no different from those used in South Africa during the period of the National Party government. The Labour Party should be ashamed of themselves.
Ian Burgess, Bristol,
I tend to think Islamist countries are taking this whole situation pretty well. What would you do if your country was invaded, bombed, robbed, tortured, etc. by people from the other side of the globe for reasons that where all lies? (can anyone remember 1 good reason for invading Irak that stands?
Pablo, Bordeaux, France
The rules of the game have changed. Terrorists do not play by those rules, they exploit them as the must to try and avoid detection. If you sit back on your laurels and wax on about people's rights something of biblical proportions will bite you, and the rest of us, in the proverbial.
Colin, Shaftesbury, UK
"But such few bombs as get through are the price we pay for a free society. Democracy is never a free lunch."
Words unlikely to be of any comfort to a mortally wounded victim of a terrorist attack, who, spared time to reflect, would curse Mr Jenkins for not trying to solve the problem lawfully.
Murf Oscar, Waverton, Australia
"No serious person can imagine a Britain conquered and ruled by fundamentalist Islam", Simon Jenkins says. Is there not evidence enough of just that kind of thing happening gradually in Indonesia, Nigeria, and several countries in the Middle East?
John, Cumbria.
John Clive Porthouse, Kendal, Cumbria
Some people in the police and the judiciary obviously want to prosecute those whom they regard as potentially treacherous and ungrateful for harbouring hostile thoughts towards Britain while enjoying its many advantages. This emotional response
of the authorities is understandable but undermines justice.
There is a surprisingly large minority of Muslims who feel alienation from Britain or even hostility in some cases. Maybe if the government offered a resettlement grant to first and second generation Muslim immigrants unhappy with Britain to voluntarily resettle in the country of their parents, that would bring most of them to their senses. Then when they complain to fellow Muslims about Britain,they would be told that there is a plane leaving every day and to apply for the grant.
Patrick , Dublin, Ireland
We only have ourselves to blame.If we will keep voting in the Nu-lab sixth form debating society.What else can we expect?Nu-Lab are Marxist idealists who haven't any common sense or any wisdom.Their politics are of the student type and lets's face it students are idealists and haven't much experience.What experience has Nu-Lab?All lawyers,social workers and lecturers?No wonder they are such control freaks.. Thank goodness we have grown-ups to put things right after they have made such a mess of our laws.
Jan, London, England
I admire Simon Jenkins for consistently saying what needs to be said. It is not about fairness, as so many government apologistas claim - it is about Rule of Law.
If parliament wishes to be unfair, as it obviously does to torture victims hoping for asylum, then unfair it can be. But it cannot be hypocritical. It cannot claim to protect British values while subverting Magna Carta, for example. The right to trial by one's peers extends back to the Saxon Moots. In most cases, you have already lost this right. The right to walk abroad without interference is equally old and it too is going.
The current terrorism hysteria is like Leukaemia - a disease of the body politic which turns benign defences into hyperactive and destructive agents unaccountable to normal regulation.
The solution is obvious: a real parliamentary democracy with real political leadership and real scrutiny and debate. A strong and independent judiciary. Thank heavens we have one, at least.
Richard, Horley,
jenkins oh please !!!!!!
howard, nanaimo bs, canada
I agree with you Mr. Jenkins.
Can it be an accident that all these NEW Labour people seem to have been so very left wing once upon a time?
The plethora of Police State Laws from the Home Office resembles the legal system of Soviet Russia. The mind set of the Far left and Far right merge together to make a dish alien to the tastes of those who believe in British Fair Play.
Keith Cross, London, England
The entire purpose of the 'War on Terror', it seems to me, is to provide something to do for the otherwise unemployable.
Richard, Vancouver, Canada
totally agree and a brilliantly written article - it's ironic that more people can't see that you cannot defeat evil with evil. it just becomes evil x 2.
ola, bristol,
Agree with Bob
Also, suppose a terrorist attack does take place - then who will get the blame? the islam extremists or the government?
It will always be the government for not being able to prevent it. Hence, I can justify its seemingly disproportionate measures, as long as the country can sleep safely.
freddy, Bristol,
I agree a very good article by Simon Jenkins - Common sense prevails.
The house of Lords have saved us this time but what happens when we lose our right to opt out of Europan legal treaties and the government try to push through RFID spy technology ?
Are we going to follow America into a what looks like Fascist state - they are only one step ahead of us after losing Habeus Corpus, introducing Martial Law and now RFID ?
Louise, Manchester, England
Michael in Plymouth
Can't argue too much with you. Let us agree that any form of absolute control by any group is a bad idea and therefore keep on guard from going too far in any one direction.
But let me ask you this... would you rather have been a Jew in 1939 Germany or a Jew in 1939 Russia? If I must choose between Communism and Fascism I'll take, gulp, Communism. Fascist are by definition murderers of those that not only oppose them, like Communist, but also of those that don't look like them. At least in a Communist state I don't have to be anything but a worker bee in order to get along. In a fascist state if I don't meet the ideal of what a human is suppose to look like I'm dead meat. Stalin killed for power; the fascists the world over kill simply because you don't look like they do. Right now in my country we're seeing this in the form of the hate and blame game being directed at the Latino and Moslem populations, not by the left, but by the right.
kevin , boring, oregon
"since 9/11 there has only been one successful jihadist attack in the UK..."
Which one was that, Bob?
Do tell.
The Sea Dreamer, London,
Kevin,
The left use the word fascism synonymously with the word authoritarianism as if any authoritarian politics is by definition the opposite of socialism, which therefore must be liberal. Nothing could be further from the truth. The kernel of socialism is intolerance and authoritarianism. If we concede this point to those on the left (which I don't) those on the right have lost the argument. Words mean a lot in today's world of headlines and soundbites and we mustn't allow the left to define the lexicon of politics according to their own ideology.
Michael, Plymouth,
Mr Jenkins might have also raised the issue of fast track extradition treaties, especially the one sided treaty Blair signed with the United States. The case of Mr Lofti Raissi (the Algerian airline pilot to which Mr. Jenkins alludes is a good example.
Despite his horrific ordeal , Mr. Raissi should consider himself lucky that it did not occur several years later. As it happened, his wrongful detention and extradition proceedings were eventually overturned by the courts. If his situation had occurred after implementation of Tony Blair's scandalous extradition treaty with the United States, the courts would have been powerless to intervene. Instead, Mr. Raissi would have been extradited to the United States and, unless he had independent wealth, represented by a public defender who would not have had the skills, time or resources to defend him adequately.
Once in the United States, Mr. Raissi would have had little option but to enter a plea bargain for a reduced sentence.
Mark Dixon, Lamarsh, Bures, Suffolk
To add to Simon's excellent article:
The Conservative spokesperson on security is the former head of MI5, Dame Pauline Neville Jones. The prospective Chair of the Scottish Conservative Party (unless Cameron changes his mind), is a R. Andrew Fulton, MI6 informant, and infiltrator of the University of Glasgow's Lockerbie trial information unit, set up in 1999. Fulton was only exposed after a former employee posted a list of informants on the internet.
They say spies never retire. And what would these folks do if they ever got to power over us?
Peter Biddulph, Lickey, Worcestershire, England
Simon Jenkins would have said of Hitler, "yes, he does say some bad things but saying bad things doesn't mean he will do bad things. We must be fair"
The concept of 'fairness' is dangerous.
SA, Leeds,
I am glad that my trust in the British legal system has been restored at least in part, but as some one else mentioned, how long will it be before the weaker judges take over? I do not think the next government will repeal the rubbish that has been passed into law over the last decade because they are all riding on the same terrorist bandwagon and putting unqualified angst into normal peoples minds.
Nick P., Camberley Surrey, UK
Simon
i like your article
yes new Labour still tell us thet believe in haha freedom then when you ask them why nthe UK has more cameras than many other countries you hear nothing from them.
the UK would like us all to have a tape recorder stuck onto our skull to let their army of civil servants write down what one thinks
joking aside there are too many impositions on people going about daily life
the voter must tell the government to get off our back
go and build affordable homes and homes for rent and do the things that create cooperation
where is our Ministry for Happiness?
when will El Gordo restore the link between pensions and inflation?
what has the Labour party done for working people recently?
the rubbish the leaders tell the nation is a bloody insult quite frankly
folk are fed up with one law for them and other laws for the people
hypocrisy is common in politics now and fewer people give any credence to what Gordon says or doesnt say
ta for reading this .
trevor swistchew, edinburgh, scotland
Michael in Plymouth: Of course Fascism was not utterly destroyed at the end of WW2, but it was completely proven to be a false choice. Those minor fascist states that came out of the war simply proved even further that fascism is evil. The fact that it is making a come back shows the lack of education and historical perspective that most of the population lives by. Also, the Soviet Union was NOT fascist... it was communism. They have some important differences. My country would NEVER go the way of communism, but is open to fascism. Your point is well taken however: One form of despotism is pretty much the same as another... details, details.
William in London: Just because the government is not busting down your door and hauling you to a prison cell yet by no means indicates that it's not coming. Wait until the next bombing or other terrorist attack and you'll have a population begging the government to exact even more control, imprison even more people. Selfishness rules.
kevin , boring, oregon
Thank you, Simon Jenkins.
The present judicial mess and overkill stem from "our " triumphant and triumphalist meddling in Afghanistan and Iraq, hiding our self-interest behind all that grandstanding about how noble "we" are and how bad "they" are - and now, instead of insight and remorse, our governments try the "One Last Push" trick, just to defy the voters - all "for our own good", just as it was "all for the good of the Afghanis and Iraqis". Why should anyone still believe any of that, even AFTER we have reams of evidence to the contrary?
Julia Iskandar, London, England
Kevin, Oregon.
" Fascism was not only not destroyed 60 years ago.."
Whover thought it was? Fascism existed throughout the 20th century in Soviet Russia and its satellites in E. Europe, China, S. America etc. It would be even more advanced in this country than it so obviously is had there not been the checks of the judiciary to the instinctive authoritarianism of all socialist governments since the early 20th century. Fascism, despite the well-rehearsed practice of leftists to claim the contrary, is not the antithesis or the enemy of socialism - quite the opposite. An apposite example is the very recent Oxford "debate that never was" on the subject of immigration - cancelled because of intimidation by the jackboot left. Rigid authoritarianism and the criminalizing of thoughts and social attitudes have thrived far more comfortably in left-wing regimes than those of the right. If you want to grow up to be a dictator then choose a leftist ideology in which to receive your schooling.
Michael, Plymouth,
A very well written and timely response to a worrying situation. This would be less concerning if the conductor of this orchestra had not been sleeping next to a high profile human rights lawyer.
The legal fraternity should hang its head for not outing these ridiculous Acts of Parliament for what they are; put the nation on a war footing and all these rights for the security services are there - along with the funding for our beleaguered troops.
As with the majority of this administration's policies - and their silence implicates the opposition - knee jerk policy makes good headline and bad law. Will the one person in the UK who isn't guilty of thinking theft/vandalism/murder at one stage of their life please stand up? You are the only person who isn't in danger of prosecution for thought crime.
Kevin from boring (?), Oregon makes the point that a tyrannical administration is in charge. The very reason for the second amendment being ratified in its complete wording?
Richard, Holt, Norfolk
It's interesting that Simon Jenkins and his supporters on this thread claim that the government is stoking up paranoia by exaggerating the terrorist threat. But let's look at the paranoia evinced by the Jenkinsites on this blog: they liken Britain today with the regimes of (among others) Pol Pot, Hitler, Orwell's 1984, the Milan Poisoning Scare, witch hunts, Draco, McCarthy, fascism, Guantanamo Bay (Jenkins, by association), "authoritarianism" (Jenkins), "extremist repression" (Jenkins), police state, etc. I think I can see which side of this debate is using exaggeration. Have you any idea what a police state is really like, you people?
William, London,
The fight against arbitrary justice and authoritarianism is going to be an uphill one if the opinions of Bob & Keith from London become prevalent in society. Judicial checks and balances should be ever so mighty as they are the individual's last honourable defence against democratic tyranny. Are you saying that had there been more terrorist attacks since 9/11 then Jenkins would not have been able to argue so ferociously because the climate of fear or legislative measures introduced by government would not have allowed him to? Quite likely. Or are you saying that the cowardice of government to use the power that already exists to deter undesirable aliens - deportation, or the cowardice of government to defend our borders against mass immigration and its resulting multicultural nightmare would have brought about a muslim state? The libertarians's target should be the government for not defending us against enemy aliens at the point of entry not the judges for defending natural justice.
Steve, London,
Well said Mr Jenkins! And isn't this all reminiscent of the Milan Poisoning Scare of 1630, when the inhabitants believed they were under biological and chemical terrorist attack from the French? Their response was to launch a war on terrorism and to detain innocent suspects who were then tortured, imprisoned and executed. There was no terrorism, only routine epidemics and mass hysteria exacerbated by media sensationalism and political opportunism into a major witchhunt.
Phil, Suffolk, UK
Simon Jenkins refers to "The claim of ministers that militant Islamism constitutes “a threat to British valuesâ€". But for years foreign intelligence agencies warned them that many people being admitted to Britain were a danger, which the government studiously ignored. The question `why' needs to be asked. He also refers to a "secret establishment" who strangely enough are the very ones who keep telling us there is an Islamist threat. Think our government doesn't lie? What got us into Iraq then? The real question you should be asking Mr. Jenkins is, who does `our' government really serve? Are you sure it really is us? By their actions, not their words, shall you know them. It isn't a change of government we need, it's a change in the system of government to ensure that MP's are beholden to the electorate only and not to the Government who should be beholden to MPs. Benjamin Franklin said that "the essence of democracy is that you distrust your government". We should listen to him.
Jill Dandy, Nantwich,
Apart from Simon Jenkins and one or two others, there isn't an awful lot of criticism of the government's draconian laws, is there? In fact, it seems that the general public welcomes the National Identity card, CCTV, fingerprinting and DNA profiling, the man on the Clapham omnibus wanting even more surveillance, longer incarceration without trial, and further knee-jerk government polices. A lot more injustice therefore has to happen before Jenkins' almost lone cry in the wilderness becomes an echo that can be heard across Britain. At the moment there is still far too much complacency that "nanny knows best". And the official Opposition to the government is just hedging its bets in case it takes over in a couple of years.
Mike Mitchell, Spalding, England
If the police and the crown prosecusion service lied to the court does that mean they commited perjury. Under these circumstances I presume under the law they would have to be charged with perjury,but by who?
s barker, perth,
Liberal fundamentalists such as Simon Jenkins are only able to argue their case with such ferocity because since 9/11 there has only been one successful jihadist attack in the UK. And why is this the case? Precisely because of the actions of security forces working within the evolving anti-terror legal framework set up by parliament with all the checks and balances provided by an active judiciary. It's important, however, not to allow judicial checks and balances to become over-mighty and prevent the elected legislature from doing its duty to protect the British people.
Bob, London,
Extremism and terrorism must be addressed and destroyed. However, som eof the actions taken by our "security organziations" are bordering on paranoia and reek of McCarthyism. Laws should be stricter and focus on intent. In any civilized society, everyone must be treated equally under the law and the rights of the individuals must be respected.
Hamad Lone, London, England
I just hope and pray that these words do not come back to haunt Simon Jenkins. One of the biggest mistakes that a civilised society can make when faced with a threat that shelters under the tolerance of the population and the even-handedness of the justice system, is to continue to act as if everyone is playing fair. There comes a time when force must be met by force, when preventative measures have to be taken even though they may impinge on an individual's civil rights and when the focus of law-enforcement must be on a specific group of people or area of our community, even though it appears disproportionate and prejudiced. Failure to do so places the authorities at such a disadvatage that they cannot perform their function as we all would expect.
Keith Downer, London, UK
This is not happening just in the UK. Our federal government is also passing more and more laws aimed at absolute control of the populace. A person will not be able to flee the ability of the police to search and arrest no matter where you are; home, car or just walking down the street. So far it's going on without a hitch or serious complaint. Apathy and selfishness have come to completely rule over the western countries with their culture that the individual now rules over every other consideration, including freedom itself. It seems it is better, for most folks anymore, that the protection of their one life is more important than the freedom of entire nations. Fascism was not only not destroyed 60 years ago, it is getting stronger all the time with the new version having technology that Hitler only dreamed of. George Orwell was not just a writer, he was a prophet.
kevin , boring, oregon
Read the history of the Pol Pot period in Cambodia, and you'll realise that Britain is suffering from the same malady, albeit it in a milder form. State control, central planning, paranoia, thought crimes, you can go to jail for what you're thinking. The reasons for Britain’s demise are complicated, but it doesn't have to be your problem. That Britain is becoming a police state is undeniable, but as an individual you have has much culpability as the Man in the Moon. So fly the coop before it's too late; life's too short to put up with a state that's long on Socialist theory and short on practical solutions.
Andrew Milner, Mui Ne, Vietnam
That was one of the best article that i have read for some time by Simon Jenkins. Every word was spot on... well written sir !
jayil, london, uk
I too think the judges should be commended for their actions. The trouble is that they may be replaced over time with other judges who will do what the authoritarian politicians want.
Simon, Chatham , Kent
Mr Jenkins, where's your solution?
Ian, Toronto, Canada
Which came first? 'Terrorism against Britain' or the illegal invasion of Iraq?
Romans Seja, Billesdon, UK