Immediate Complaint to Home Office
Arron Fitzgerald, 02 Sep 2006 00:34:55
FYI
----- Original Message -----
Arron Fitzgerald, 02 Sep 2006 00:34:55
To: CLPU consultations
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 10:24 AM
rovacs, 02 Sep 2006 01:14:44
Aaron-see my comments on "we need to be working harder on this" thread and the one I started relating to the Countryside Alliance case at the ECHR. The hunt ban had no chance of an incompatibility declaration-the case was too poor-these proposals drive such a coach and horses thru Convention guarantees I will stick my neck out and say there is no way they can be found compatible by the ECHR as they are currently outlined. This will be why they have said so little about it. The regime hope nobody will notice.
I think a pressure group along the lines of "No imprisonment for looking at a fantasy picture"(but better than that) needs forming. It would need a blunt to the point name like that to stress to everyone this is precisely what Vermin Croaker,the Bliar abomination etc are trying to do. A well known celeb would help too-if any of them would dare .
Author wrote:
> FYI
> ----- Original Message -----
: Arron Fitzgerald, 02 Sep 2006 01:14:44
> To: CLPU consultations
> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 10:24 AM
> Subject: Re: Omission from Consultation
> Dear Sir or Madam
> The fact that a prominent Human Rights barrister, indeed a member of Cherie Booth's Matrix Chambers, declared that there were serious concerns about the proposals (contradicting the cursory mention of compatibility in the original consultation document) clearly warranted a distinct mention in the consultation response. It is legally illiterate to claim that because he does not state outright that the proposals would breach the convention, that his conclusion is ambiguous. Obviously as a legal opinion, rather than a court ruling, he can make no such outright declaration - however, as the Home Office will be aware, 'serious concerns' is as close as a legal opinion can possibly come to making an outright declaration.
> Moreover, there are virtually no mentions of contraventions of the ECHR in the response. The fundamental intrusion into the private life of individual, the de facto criminalisation of certain types of ''sexual thoughts', and the inherent impossibility of any private individual having certain knowledge that they are committing a crime under these proposals, makes ECHR issues paramount in the legislative process.
> Your responses so far have done nothing to disabuse me of the notion that the Home Office has deliberately suppressed the opinion of a leading Q.C. in the humans rights field that the proposals are unlawful under the ECHR. In common with other individuals and groups, I will therefore be campaigning on the premise that the Home Office is in breach of its obligations with regard to conducting consultations in an honest and transparent manner, and is also misrepresenting the ECHR concerns that may eventually be litigated all the way to Strasbourg.
> Regards
> Arron Fitzgerald
> ----- Original Message -----
om: CLPU consultations, 02 Sep 2006 01:14:44
> To: 'Arron Fitzgerald'
> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 9:32 AM
> Subject: RE: Omission from Consultation
> Dear Mr Fitzgerald,
> Thank you for your further email.
> I note your referral to Mr Singh's conclusions - but we do not believe that they were as straightforward as you suggest.
> In paragraph 37 of his response, which was received c/o The Spanner Trust, Mr Singh states " ......I consider that the legislation as proposed gives rise to real concerns as to its compatibility with an individual's rights under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention." He does appear not say outright that they would breach the convention - which ultimately would be a matter for the courts.
> With regard to this conclusion being in the response, this is simply due to the fact that nearly 400 responses were received and a summary can only hope to include material from a range of them, bearing in mind that many of them said similar things. The Summary is quite open about the fact that a large number of responses were against the proposal.
> regards
> CLPU
> 2nd Floor
> Fry Building
> 2MS
> -----Original Message-----
om: Arron Fitzgerald [mailto:arron_fitzgerald@hotmail.co.uk], 02 Sep 2006 01:14:44
> Sent: 30 August 2006 2:59 PM
> To: CLPU consultations
> Subject: Re: Omission from Consultation
> Dear Sir or Madam
> Mr Singh's conclusion, that the proposals would contravene the ECHR, is missing from the document. The comments in paragraph 59 are incidental to this conclusion.
> Please therefore explain why you have omitted this conclusion, which clearly and convincingly demonstates why the goverment should not proceed with the legislation, which will of course be fought all the way to the European Court of Human Rights.
> Arron Fitzgerald
> ----- Original Message -----
From: CLPU consultations, 02 Sep 2006 01:14:44
> To: 'Arron Fitzgerald'
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 2:47 PM
> Subject: RE: Omission from Consultation
> Dear Mr Fitzgerald,
> Thank you for your recent email.
> You refer to a response from Mr Rabinder Singh QC.
> Mr Singh's comments are referred to in paragraph 59 of the response document.
> With regard to his response it was sent in as part of the Spanner Trust response, not as an individual response.
> regards
> CLPU
> 2nd Floor
> Fry Building
> 2MS
> -----Original Message-----
From: Arron Fitzgerald [mailto:arron_fitzgerald@hotmail.co.uk], 02 Sep 2006 01:14:44
> Sent: 30 August 2006 1:47 PM
> To: CLPUconsultations@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
> Subject: Omission from Consultation
> Dear Sir or Madam
> Violent Images Consultation Response
> Please explain why the advice from Rabinder Singh Q.C.,detailing the reasons why the proposed legislation would contravene the ECHR, has been omitted from the consulation response.
> Arron Fitzgerald
> PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET.
> On entering the GSI, this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Cable & Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs.
> In case of problems, please call your organisational IT Helpdesk.
> The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality mark initiative for information security products and services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk
> **********************************************************************
> This email and any files transmitted with it are private and intended
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
> If you have received this email in error please return it to the address
> it came from telling them it is not for you and then delete it from your system.
> This email message has been swept for computer viruses.
> **********************************************************************
> The original of this email was scanned for viruses by Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Cable & Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs.
> On leaving the GSI this email was certified virus free.
> The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality mark initiative for information security products and services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk
> PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET.
> On entering the GSI, this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Cable & Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs.
> In case of problems, please call your organisational IT Helpdesk.
> The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality mark initiative for information security products and services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk
> **********************************************************************
> This email and any files transmitted with it are private and intended
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
> If you have received this email in error please return it to the address
> it came from telling them it is not for you and then delete it from your system.
> This email message has been swept for computer viruses.
> **********************************************************************
> The original of this email was scanned for viruses by Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Cable & Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs.
> On leaving the GSI this email was certified virus free.
> The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality mark initiative for information security products and services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk
*** This message has been edited by rovacs on 02 Sep 2006 01:25:27 ***