How Big is London?

The resignation of Sir Ian Blair as Metropolitan Police Commissioner shows what a multi-polar polity has come into existence over recent years. At one time the support of the Home Secretary would have sufficed to keep the Commissioner in post: now he needs the support of the Mayor of London as well. Westminster politics is no longer the only significant level.

Several if not most reports refer to the Commissioner as “Britain’s top policemen”. Is this just a journalistic puff? Surely the Commissioner has no authority outside his territory in the Metropolis?

Sir Ian Blair’s resignation statement mentions no current responsibilities other than those he has for London. However, both the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have referred to his national role. It is not very clear to me at least what function the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has in respect of policing outside London.

This is probably a rather crude piece of political manoeuvring: by suggesting the existence of a function extending beyond London’s boundaries they are trying to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the role of the Mayor of London in the Commissioner’s resignation.

Cameras are not unlawful, usually

After an unconscionably long rest from blogging, what drove me back to the keyboard was nothing more momentous than a television documentary of the fly-on-the-wall genre. This one broadcast on Thursday evening was about motorway police and showed a remarkable incident where two Swedish sisters took a walk along the central reservation of the M6. Both were badly injured running away from police across the carriageway. The programme in allowing the police to speak for themselves showed them in a sympathetic light in very difficult circumstances. One thing that struck me however was that one policeman told members of the public - drivers whose vehicles had been stopped - to stop taking photographs or filming, and that otherwise he would take away their cameras.

I cannot think what powers he would have to do this. I can well understand that members of the public could be so close as to interfere with operations, but it seemed to be the photography rather than the proximity of the members of the public to which he objected. The whole incident was of course being professionally filmed in any event.

To me, this is an example of the way in which a perfectly lawful activity in most circumstances - photography - apppears to have become an object of suspicion to the police. Mr Austin Mitchell MP has I believe drawn attention to this development. To me it is all the more remarkable that one of the few legal restrictions on photography - photography immediately outside a court - is flouted in most news bulletins with impunity.

National Day of Luxembourg

Today marks the national day of Luxembourg. Most countries’ national days mark an event of historical significance: the United States’ 4 July marks of course the declaration of independence, while Sweden’s 6 June commemorates the accession to the throne of Gustav Wasa – effectively the start of independence from the Danish-dominated Kalmar Union.

Today marks the official birthday of the Grand-Duke, but no Luxembourg sovereign has ever actually been born on 23 June. Grand-Duchess Charlotte was born on 23 January 1896, but the date of the national day was displaced by five months in the hope of better weather.

The choice of date therefore shows a mixture of pragmatism and respect for tradition which is perhaps not untypical of Luxembourg.

15 June 1215

On this day seven hundred and ninety-three years ago at Runnymede King John assented to the Magna Carta:

“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.”[1]

What is wrong with that?
[1] Text from British Library: http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/translation/mc_trans.html

Not just 42 days

The resignation of the shadow Home Secretary has placed even further emphasis on the 42 days clause of the Bill currently before Parliament. Imprisoning suspects without charge for six weeks is a shocking development, but I wonder if the 42 days clause, appalling as it is, has distracted attention from some other unwelcome developments.

One provision that struck me was the power given to ministers to hold inquests in secret. Section 77 of the Bill which amends the Coroners Act 1988 provides in part:

“The Secretary of State may certify in relation to an inquest that, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, the inquest will involve the consideration of material that should not be made public—

(a) in the interests of national security,

(b) in the interests of the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country, or

(c) otherwise in the public interest.”

The idea of secret inquests – presumably held in camera without a jury – is an unsettling one. I cannot help wondering how wide the definition of public interest in (c) will prove to be. Will it be taken to mean anything embarrassing to the authorities?

Evangelism in Birmingham

I can add little to the chorus of (justified) condemnation of the West Midlands PCSO who abused two evangelists handing out tracts in Birmingham last week. Nonetheless, I would wish to call into question the concept of a “Muslim area” which apparently has formed in some quarters.

The United Kingdom is just that. Its laws apply equally in all parts of the kingdom, unless those laws provide otherwise. In particular, the Bill of Rights 1689 which refers to “this Protestant kingdom” has not been revoked. One may practice any religion in this kingdom, but the state itself is Protestant.

The Christian faith is a missionary faith. Our Lord has commanded us “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost…” (Matt 28:19). Those who decry proselytization are not obedient to this last command Our Lord uttered before His ascension.

Returning to RIPA

I see from the Daily Telegraph (22 May 2008) that Northampton Borough Council has “admitted using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act five times to catch dog owners who let their pets foul on grass.” The powers were also used in two cases of noise nuisance and two of anti-social behaviour (as well, admittedly, as ten fraud cases).

I looked at RIPA in some detail a little while ago. What puzzles me a little here is (if the report is accurate) into which of the Section 29(3) grounds anti-social behaviour could fall. Anti-social behaviour is not as such a crime to my knowledge in England and Wales. Unless public safety or public health can be invoked, one has to wonder whether the council was acting within its powers.