MI6 investigation makes case for full torture inquiry even stronger - Davey

“At the very least we need to know where and when this occurred, and what kind of incident is being investigated," said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Foreign Secretary. Commenting on the revelation that the Metropolitan Police are to investigate allegations of MI6 complicity in torture, Edward Davey said:

“Given the gravity and number of allegations of UK complicity in torture, separate limited police investigations alone are inadequate.

“The case for a full judicial inquiry has become even stronger.

“The lack of information available on this case is unacceptable. There are surely many more details the Government could reveal which would not prejudice the case but are vital matters of public interest.

“At the very least we need to know where and when this occurred, and what kind of incident is being investigated. We also need to know what has suddenly prompted this apparent outbreak of conscience at MI6. Otherwise, the public may feel information is being kept secret to save political embarrassment.”

Control orders, torture techniques and the rise of the BNP - Does Britain still care about human rights?

Liberty poll shows authorities out of step with British public

(London – 15 June 2009) – In defiance of recent events, a poll released today by Liberty shows overwhelming support for human rights laws. Despite a week of the Government defending the unjust and unsafe control order system, the Metropolitan police accused of using "waterboarding" techniques with suspects and the BNP winning two European parliament seats, polling reveals that 97% think it is important that there is a law that protects rights and freedoms in the UK.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said;an rights in Britain. Despite headlines about "waterboarding" and punishment without trial, our common values still run extremely deep and the contents of the Human Rights Act are valued by the overwhelming majority of people."

The ComRes polling, commissioned by Liberty, sends a clear message to all political parties about the values the British public hold dear.

● 89% identified the right not to be tortured or degraded as either vital or important..

● 95% identified both the right to a fair trial and respect for privacy family life and the home as either vital or important.

● 76% believed that the right not to be detained without reason was either vital or important.

At last week's Liberty conference, recently retired senior Law Lord, Lord Bingham said of the

"This poll will be depressing reading for the cocky far right and others opposed to hum

Human Rights Act:

"Which of these rights, I ask, would we wish to discard? Are any of them trivial, superfluous, unnecessary? Are any of them un-British? There may be those who would like to live in a country where these rights are not protected, but I am not of their number."

Sabina Frediani, Campaigns Co-ordinator for Liberty, said;

"Britain hasn't just got talent; it's got an ocean of common sense and decency too. Public bodies have yet to step up and educate people about their rights protections but the public cherish them nonetheless. We need to be more suspicious of politicians who bash our human rights whilst demanding "due process" and "personal privacy" for themselves."

Liberty's poll coincides with the launch of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission's Human Rights Inquiry report. However, both the Commission and The Government have yet to educate the public about the Human Rights Act – the Liberty poll shows that only 10% remember seeing or receiving any information explaining the legislation.

Jenny Jones welcomes mayor's approach to G20 policing questions

Jenny Jones, Green Party member of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA), today spoke warmly of the outcomes of the MPA's discussion of the Met's handling of the G20 protests.

She said:

"I welcome the creation of the civil liberties panel, and the fact that its first job will be to examine the policing of the G20 protests. The terms of reference for this panel incorporated all the concerns put forward in the two motions that went to the MPA."

"I feel that the London Mayor has listened to the concerns of Londoners and achieved a consensus about the way forward."

Ms Jones, who has been a Green Party member of the London Assembly and the MPA for nine years, continued:

"Part of our examination will cover the areas of major concern, like the level of force used against the peaceful protestors at the climate camp in Bishopsgate."

The Met's report to the police authority refers to organisers of the camp being avowed non-violent demonstrators and the success of the police's containment policy in keeping out violent elements (also known as kettling). Concerns remain that the police have failed to provide any evidence of any violence at the camp. On the contrary, video footage shows only passive resistance, said Ms Jones.

She continued: "I think that the use of riot shields and batons against peaceful protestors was fundamentally wrong and we have to keep on challenging the Met on their use of tactics like riot police, dogs and kettling."

But she welcomed:

* The Met's acceptance of her invitation to meet the climate camp protestors and include them within any review.
* Clear statements from the police that photographing officers is legal, and that the police cannot require protestors to delete photographs, or hand over mobile phones at these events, by reference to anti-terrorism legislation (a paper clarifying this policy is to be produced soon).
* Acceptance that officers should not systematically stop people on their way to a protest, asking for their names, addresses and even ID.

Met G20 tactics "fundamentally wrong" - MPA motion

A motion has been tabled for the agenda of the next public meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority on the 30th May, 10am at City Hall.

The motion recognizes that policing the G20 demonstration on the 1st April was:

"difficult, but believes that the strategy and tactics adopted by the Metropolitan Police were fundamentally wrong."

The motion outlines two key criteria which the current review by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) needs to meet in order to restore confidence in the police:

"[it] must take evidence in a public forum from all concerned, including protesters, and closely examine other recent protests to consider the growing concern that police tactics have become more aggressive in recent years."

The motion outlines six principles which the review of public order policing must be based upon and concludes that:

"If these principles are not fully incorporated into the HMIC review and any recommendations that arise from it, then this Authority will re-examine what further steps need to be taken, including the possibility of instigating a further review."

Jenny Jones AM, Green Party member of the MPA and the party's home affairs spokesperson, said yesterday evening:

"As more and more stories flood out, the reputation of the police has declined with every slow motion replay of the latest corroborating video footage."

She continued:

"It would be easy to think that this misbehaviour is a sudden and worrying new development. Yet there is evidence that the G20 policing debacle is the result of repeated failures by police watchdogs, the media and politicians to deal with incidence of violent and repressive behaviour from the police in recent years."

"As a member of the Met Police Authority for the last nine years, I have been a critical friend of the police, defending them when I see the coverage is unfair, but making it clear when I think they have got it wrong. On 1st April, they got it disastrously wrong. They took away the liberty, the civil liberties and the human rights of hundreds of people who were protesting peacefully. Who had every right to protest and who needed the police's support. What the police did to the fluffy, happy, musical, picnicking Climate Camp part of the protest was violent and unprovoked."

Huhne: Police warned on hiding identification numbers three years ago

The Liberal Democrats have highlighted an IPCC report which criticised the Police for obscuring them during the anti-hunting Bill protests in 2004, reinforcing the Inspector of Constabulary comments that the Police should always display their identification numbers

The IPCC report in the pro-hunting demonstration in 2004, stated that: "Two such areas were quickly defined: firstly the failure of some officers to comply with an instruction to wear black epaulettes on their yellow fluorescent jackets, thus ensuring easy identification. This is a managed issue; a sergeant is attached to a unit of six constables and this should be a relatively easy task to comply with."

Another example of the Police without identifying numbers at the Kingsnorth protest

Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary Chris Huhne went on to say:

"Three years ago, the IPCC raised concerns that some officers were obscuring their identification numbers during the pro-hunting demonstrations.

"It is deeply disappointing that this problem raised its ugly head again during the most recent protests, particularly when we were given firm assurances that it would not.

"There have also been reports of this unacceptable tactic being used at the Heathrow and Kingsnorth demonstrations. It has got to stop. Senior officers must reassert discipline among those policing demonstrations."

Torture in London and a hell of a lot of angry questions

The Metropolitan Police has been ordered to pay £60,000 damages to a terror suspect after admitting in the High Court that arresting officers subjected him to violent assaults and religious abuse.

Their defence crumbled when lawyers for the Met conceded that Babar Ahmed from Tooting in London was the victim of gratuitous violence by territorial support group officers during the dawn arrest at his home in December 2003. One of the police officers involved could face criminal proceedings and Mr Ahmad was never charged with any offences arising out of his arrest.

In August 2004 he was detained at the request of the US government and has been held at Long Lartin prison since whilst he waits for a decision on whether his extradition to the US would contravene the European Convention on Human Rights. The officers who carried out the 2003 arrest had been briefed that Mr Ahmad was believed to be connected to al-Qaida and was the head of a south London terrorist group.

Call me crazy...but what on earth is going on in this country and with the human rights law that New Labour enacted when it came to power? When did it ever become acceptable either before or after the Human Rights Act 1998 to torture a suspect in custody? when did it become acceptable to hold someone in prison for five years without charge? When did it become acceptable to extradite someone to a country or regime that condones torture? How is it that we can't send people back to places like Jordan or Saudi without a stinking fuss but we are happy to send them to Guantanamo for the US to violate?

Just as importantly, why is our own police force of the opinion that it is acceptable for its officers, its protectors of society to torture suspects in its custody? How is it with the amount of surveillance technology available in interrogation rooms that officers managed to perform torture without immediate restraint or protest from fellow officers? Why is it that a police force that is habitually accused of and rife with institutional racism allowing this kind of behaviour against ethnic minorities from its officers? Why are we making the same mistakes with Islamic terrorists that we made in the 60s, 70s and 80s with the IRA? Why are we giving terrorists substance to their cause greater than they had to start with?

Why will the Metropolitan police not apologise for their appalling behaviour in this instance?

Answer the questions honestly and the only soul destroying conclusion that can be drawn is that when the dust settles, the actions of these representatives of our state renders us no better than those who seek to destroy us...and that makes me spit with anger and rage!!!