The definition of Terrorism grows ever wider. It may surprise you to learn of the ways in which Vernon Coaker, the Labour Home Office Minister, has quietly signed away your right to undertake everyday activities.

There are many reasons why you might wish to find out the current address of a former neighbour, or discover the whereabouts of a debtor, for instance. You should check their former occupation before you do so – you could now be labelled a terrorist for attempting to obtain information about any former police officer or member of the armed forces.

2009 No.58 (C.6) – Prevention And Suppression Of Terrorism – The Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (Commencement No. 2) Order 2009

2. The following provisions of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 shall come into force on 16th February 2009– […] (d) section 76 (offences relating to information about members of armed forces etc), together with Schedule 8 (offences relating to information about members of armed forces etc: supplementary provisions);

Any defence? Mmmn, after you have been fingerprinted, a DNA sample taken, and tagged with the words ‘suspected Terrorist’!  

(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action.

It is for you to prove that your excuse was reasonable – not for the prosecution to prove that you are guilty.

This draconian law will affect many people – from the debt collecting agencies to the campaigning journalist, from the royal biographers – all those minor princes parading in their uniforms – to wives trying to track down an errant ex-policeman husband.  

Murphy’s Law will prevail – if the threat of prosecution under this law can be invoked, it will be.

The UK libel laws are already wreaking havoc with investigative journalism, where the burden of proof is similarly placed on the defendant; now every editor will have to check with the legal team to see if the person they are investigating can possibly invoke anti-Terrorism laws before setting a reporter on their trail.

Why did they exclude ex-Cabinet Ministers from this Act? Do they consider they are already adequately protected? What is so special about an ex-Policeman?

Coco February 3, 2009 at 21:49

I tell you Anna – that is a mint idea! I have to delete between 400 and 600
spam per day. I also send ridiculous emails to friends ………. as you know!

So ……… I will make up some very ambiguous emails and send them to friends
from now on and talk about terrorist activity ………… But I will use words of
more than two or three syllables!

Who is going to read these emails? I rarely meet a Civil Servant that can
even fucking read and write these days! I have to read letters written by
Social Workers and the Police etc. every day of the week and they are
atrocious.

So I cannot wait to see how they will be dealing with torrents of
emails.

Will somebody please take this Government into the basement of the Houses
of Parliament and shoot the damned lot of them! This is an order!

Sometimes we have to be cruel to be kind …………. I think we should put them
out of their misery! …………. As soon as possible!

janes February 2, 2009 at 12:09

Is this a suggestion? If so it’s a bloody good one!

Coco
February 2, 2009 at 05:33

Sorry I missed you Chatelaine! There is some news just out that may
interest us greatly tomorrow ………. A very mysterious bank account has been
closed ……… allegedly …….. I am trying to find out if it’s true!

Crumbs!

Anna Raccoon
February 2, 2009 at 07:37

Some excellent points there Coco, women trying to find the Father of
their baby…..

On a similar note, now that the Home Office want to read all our e-mails,
I have re-directed the contents of my Spam folder to smithjj@parliament.uk in a sprit of
co-operation – she can start by reading the thousands of offers to enlarge
my penis……..she’ll get bored before I do.

Just imagine if everybody did this!

Ch February 2, 2009 at 01:15

And I’m not even British.

Ch February 2, 2009 at 01:15

I’m off to a restless sleep

Ch February 2, 2009 at 01:12

Blimey!

Coco
February 2, 2009 at 01:12

You should check their former occupation before you do so – you could now
be labelled a terrorist for attempting to obtain information about any former
police officer or member of the armed forces.”

********************************************************************

Well! Looks like we are completely fucked if they worked for the SAS or MI5
then …………….as an under-cover agent in a block of flats on a Council estate!!!

So what shall we do in that situation? Where a woman has been left pregnant
by one of them? ……. And is just trying to find her baby’s father?

I know! ………… Let’s just purchase copies of all the CDs that go missing from
Government Departments every day of the week due to scatty and cannot
-be-arsed personnel.

They are being sold under everybody’s nose on the bloody internet! Or does
this stupid Government not realise this?

Anybody who has been in receipt of child benefits; anybody who has been a
guest of Her Majesty; anybody who has worked for Her Majesty;
anybody who
has even been a suspected terrorist ………. their information is on the internet!
You can buy the CD on the internet ……… with their dates of birth, national
insurance numbers and residences etc.

I think that the Government have forgotten that they are employing people
who earn between

janes February 2, 2009 at 00:18

The thin end of the wedge, compliance: Keeping up-to-date with new BBC
compliance and editorial guidelines many of which have been brought in since
the Jonathon Ross scandal is proving a bit of a bind. It involves the checking
of all texts and emails by a producer or BA prior to a presenter reading them
out. Also, any traffic updates phoned in by the public cannot be read out on
air immediately as they were previously, they must first be checked with the
Police, Fire, Ambulance or News Editor for accuracy.