I trust the Times will forgive me if I reprint a letter from today’s edition in full, so important is its content.

Sir, Clause one of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill (Comment, Feb 15) provides that: “A Minister of the Crown may by order make provision for either or both of the following purposes — a) reforming legislation; b) implementing recommendations of any one or more of the United Kingdom Law Commissions, with or without changes.�

This has been presented as a simple measure “streamlining� the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, by which, to help industry, the Government can reduce red tape by amending the Acts of Parliament that wove it. But it goes much further: if passed, the Government could rewrite almost any Act and, in some cases, enact new laws that at present only Parliament can make.

The Bill subjects this drastic power to limits, but these are few and weak. If enacted as it stands, we believe the Bill would make it possible for the Government, by delegated legislation, to do (inter alia) the following:

# create a new offence of incitement to religious hatred, punishable with two years’ imprisonment;

# curtail or abolish jury trial;

# permit the Home Secretary to place citizens under house arrest;

# allow the Prime Minister to sack judges;

# rewrite the law on nationality and immigration;

# “reform� Magna Carta (or what remains of it).

It would, in short, create a major shift of power within the state, which in other countries would require an amendment to the constitution; and one in which the winner would be the executive, and the loser Parliament.

David Howarth, MP for Cambridge, made this point at the Second Reading of the Bill last week. We hope that other MPs, on all sides of the House, will recognise the dangers of what is being proposed before it is too late.

PROFESSOR J. R. SPENCER, QC
PROFESSOR SIR JOHN BAKER, QC
PROFESSOR DAVID FELDMAN
PROFESSOR CHRISTOPHER FORSYTH
PROFESSOR DAVID IBBETSON
PROFESSOR SIR DAVID WILLIAMS, QC
Law Faculty,
University of Cambridge

Yes, this letter really is signed by not one but six law professors from Cambridge University, three of who are QCs and two knights of the realm.

This is my last word on the Terrorism Bill debate, I promise, until the Bill returns to the House of Lords, which should be sometime in early March: the 6th has, I understand, been mooted.

I watched the latter stages of the debate on clause 3 of the Bill, which deals with ‘take down’ notices for websites and, if you’ve read one of my previous posts, you’ll recall I mentioned an exchange involving the Tory MP for New Forest East, Dr Julian Lewis.

What I want to do here is replay that exchange just so everyone is clear what was said and what Dr Lewis was suggesting.

I’ll start a little before the key exchange between Lewis and Hazel Blears, as other points emerge in this part of the debate that are worth noting, so to begin with, here, Hazel Blears outlines the role of Special Branch in relation to this legislation.

May I set out the detail of what the special branch officers will do, as it will give the House some reassurance? An officer in the anti-terrorism branch of the police service who carries out such duties is known as the single point of contact, and deals regularly with internet service providers and the communications industry. Our relationship with the communications industry does not simply focus on terrorism, and there are a range of issues on which the police must foster good relations. The accredited single point of contact officers will ensure efficiency and good practice in their management of relationships. They will use only practical and lawful requirements for the acquisition of communications data, and they will provide a guardian and gatekeeper function to minimise the burdens on internet providers so that a huge amount of bureaucracy is not created. At the same time, however, they will ensure that there is access to the information that could help us to tackle such problems.

Most of this is simply managerialist guff:- “The accredited single point of contact officers will ensure efficiency and good practice in the management of relationships�, for example.

The more interesting statement in this passage is this:- “and they [Special Branch] will provide a guardian and gatekeeper function to minimise the burdens on internet providers so that a huge amount of bureaucracy is not created At the same time, however, they will ensure that there is access to the information that could help us to tackle such problems.�

A guardian and gatekeeper function? So what is she suggesting here, that while Special Branch is watching for terrorists they’re also defending our privacy from the prying-eyes of Internet Service Providers? That ‘guardian and gatekeeper’ reference worries me greatly as it implies a much greater level of routine surveillance than merely checking out a few iffy-looking websites when the need arises and a degree of monitoring that goes far beyond the power of communications intercepts afforded by Regulation of Investigatory Powers.

Just what, precisely are the parameters of this particular function, what authority do these officer have and from where, legally, does this authority derive?

At this point, Dr Lewis steps in with his first point…

The policemen who undertake such work will be specialists, if only in linguistics, because much of the material will probably be in a foreign language. However, what would happen if something were posted on the web that genuinely quoted inflammatory material, perhaps to criticise it? On the other hand, to get round the law, a posting could quote inflammatory material and pretend to criticise it but, in fact, be seeking to propagate it.

I wonder how many foreign language websites are actually hosted on UK-based servers by UK Service Providers, surely there can’t be that many?

Still, Lewis does point out one of the obvious flaws in the Bill; one could certainly use the pretext of critiquing inflammatory material to circumvent the prohibition of disseminating terrorism related information, making it difficult to distinguish between genuine commentaries and commentaries that are deliberately constructed to circumvent the law.

Now back to Blears:

Clearly, those are matters of interpretation of the material posted. Does it fulfil the conditions of the offences in clauses 1 and 2? Does it appear to be material of the kind that could qualify as the offence? The original notice and take-down procedure will be a judgment reached by the specially accredited officers who are properly trained to deal with these matters. It is important to stress that failure to remove the material is not a criminal offence. It simply stops the person availing themselves of the statutory defence that is in place.

That is probably a good balance, so that we can get swift action. Things on the web move very quickly. If we had to go to judicial authority—a High Court judge—simply for the notification procedure, that would build inordinate delay into the process.

Again, aspects of this statement are, I find, particularly worrying. In deciding whether to issue a take down notice, the law is entirely interpretive and therefore subjective – without judicial oversight we are relying solely on judgment calls by individual police officers?

Will this law in place, the chances of finding material which is clearly and unequivocally encouraging terrorism on UK servers is likely to be pretty slim – any terrorist supporter with half a brain will be moving their sites overseas in fairly short order, if they haven’t done so already, in much the same way that, for example, the BNP host their website in the US so as to place it outside UK jurisdiction.

So, with that in mind, just who is that will find themselves getting caught up by this law?

I would venture that anyone who may genuinely be seeking to encourage terrorism or publish terrorist-supporting materials is likely to be at least bright enough to host their websites overseas and, beyond that, to host them in countries where diplomatic relations with the West are such that there is little or no prospect of getting at them. What that actually leave behind are the odd few hot-heads who are naïve enough to think that the Internet affords them anonymity simply because they aren’t required to put their real name in the comments box – in short, no one of any real consequence.

Blears comments about the delay involved in getting a Judge to look over and approve a take down notice are, of course, complete and utter rubbish on several counts.

First, it may take a while to pull in High Court Judge to rule on take down notices, but not a Circuit Court Judge, who could typically be available to here such an application on nor more than a couple of hours notice.

Second, it’s really not clear quite what it is that makes Blears think that such urgency is necessary in these cases. Unless Special Branch is operating a 24-7 watch on the whole of the UK in order to remove such material as soon as it appears, then anything they do come across is likely to have been around for a few days, weeks or even months, at least, before it pops up on their radar – and even after it is removed, the information in question may still be kicking around in webcaches, especially Google’s cache, for quite some considerable time after the original material has been removed.

It seems to me that the case for urgency here not about any real need for a speedy response to inflammatory material – the take down notices themselves give Service Providers 48 hours to make a decision as to whether to remove such material – so much as a need to keep the judiciary out of the loop as judicial oversight would not guarantee that material would be removed – the police would have to show proper legal cause before issuing a take down notice – and would open the door to appeals against take down notices.

Another worrying aspect of this, sad to say, is the question of just what might influence the judgment of individual officers one way or another in situations where the encounter material that is somewhat ambiguous in terms of whether it is encouraging or supporting terrorism. I really do hate to have to say this, but I do think that in such situations one of the circumstances which may well get taken into account is likely to be the ethnicity/religion of the publisher/author of the material. By simple, logical inference, if your real name turns out to be Mohammed rather than Simon then you’re much more likely to see your website disappearing into the legal ether if you publish anything which looks ambiguous.

An then, of course, there is the fear that this could quite easily impact on legitimate and potentially productive debate within the Islamic community.

I am, quite deliberately, going to use one of my favourite blogs – Pickled Politics – as the basis of a thought experiment to illustrate my point. If you know PP – and if you don’t you should pay them a visit – you’ll know that it is a progressive Asian-focussed group blog which published not only some of the best commentaries around but has no real fear of raising and tackling difficult subjects. If, as the government claim, we are looking to support progressive voices in the Asian, and particularly Muslim community in this country, then PP is exactly the kind of thing we should be supporting without the slightest hesitation.

So, to move our hypothetical situation forward let us assume that one of PP’s contributors posts a commentary on the Islamic conception of martyrdom and how this relates to suicide bombing – yes, I have picked this example deliberately as one highlighted by Charles Clarke as constituting the ‘glorification’ of terrorism. Now, knowing PP’s style well I can guarantee than any such hypothetical commentary by one of contributors will not only not condone the idea that suicide-bombing is acceptable but try to challenge the validity of that idea. However, open debate being what it is, a commentary of this nature would almost certainly draw contrary opinions, which would in likelihood result in comments supporting the idea that suicide-bombing is a legitimate tactic is certain circumstances and is permissible under Islamic religious law as a form of martyrdom.

Now, let me ask you this. In the situation above where does that leave a blog like Pickled Politics – does this law no mean that all debate on subject of suicide bombing is ‘out of bounds’ because someone could post comments supporting such actions? Does the law only permit them to have a one-sided debate in which any comments in support of suicide-bombing must be immediately removed from their site? And if they did go ahead and permit comments setting out both sides of the argument, are they putting their site at risk by doing so? Could one or two comments in support of the principle of suicide-bombing or arguing in favour of its validity in Islamic law, in the context of legitimate debate actually result in Pickled Politics being hit with a take down notice?

Anyway, back to Hazel Blears:

I shall finish the information, for the benefit of the House, about the single point of contact officers [Blears is responding to an attempt by Dr Lewis to make an intervention]. When people see the broad statement in the Bill about a police constable being able to take the action described, I understand their concerns and I am seeking to allay them.

The special branch officers who, as I said, are properly accredited, would assess whether it was necessary to get the information from the service providers, and they would try and offer assurance to those providers and work with them. I am assured that the officers have all been on a proper course of training. Details of all the accredited individuals are available to the service providers so that they can be reassured about the person they are dealing with.

We are considering the appropriate level for the authorisation of the power. In many areas powers are authorised at superintendent level. We have not reached a final decision about that, but if we read across from the regulation of investigatory powers legislation, that is the appropriate level.

I’d interested to know quite what is considered as a ‘proper course of training’, which is what we are assured that all these ‘accredited’ Special Branch officers have been on. We are dealing here, potentially, with complex geo-political issues and ideological positions and, somehow, I rather doubt that many of these Special Branch officers are packing degrees in Political Science. Fair enough, stuff like ‘behead the infidels’ and ‘Osama, Fuck Yeah!’ should be easy to deal with but somehow I rather doubt that Special Branch has too many officers capable of unpicking a complex ideological treatise on the global Caliphate to feel entirely confident about the ‘training’.

Anyway, back to Dr Lewis and an excellent point:

When service providers are informed about such a notification, will there not be a temptation on their part, assuming that they are just business men and women and non-ideological, to say, “Whenever we get a take-down notice, we will automatically comply. What’s in it for us to resist it?”, and will not the effect of the policy applied across the board be that all the websites will quickly find internet service providers abroad and the whole issue will become rather nugatory?

Dr Lewis is, of course, entirely correct. Many, if not most Service Providers have a hair-trigger on allegations of illegality – one only has to look at the extent to which big corporations have resorted to ‘sicking’ lawyers on websites expressing consumer dissatisfaction, knowing that many service providers will cave in when faced with the threat of expensive litigation, irrespective of the merits of individual cases, to know that the scenario Dr Lewis is putting forward is entirely well founded.

That being said, Blears response comes as no surprise.

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s premise that because there might be consequences, we should not try to limit the kind of information that is available. If we adopted that as a general approach, we would rarely legislate on anything. If, through the process, we can limit the amount of material that could be used to encourage people to engage in terrorist acts, it is a process worth adopting. I do not believe that the automatic response from providers will be to remove information. They have an interest in making sure that their websites, and access to the web, are relevant and interesting to the people who want to use them.

“I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s premise that because there might be consequences,â€? – in other words, “we don’t care how this might impact on bloggers, forum hosts and website ownersâ€?.

Here we have a typically monochromatic view of the whole situation – all or nothing. There is no alternative.

But, of course, there is – judicial oversight.

Service providers responding automatically to take down notices is a non-issue if such notices are signed by a judge and carry with them both the full force of law – having been issued after proper consideration of evidence – and a right of appeal. But, as we’ve already established, the government do not want judges involved in this at all.

From here the debate move on to points raised by other MPs until we get, finally, to Dr Lewis’s most worrying intervention:

I am being persistent about the matter because I was one of the first people to issue a writ against an internet service provider for defamatory material. That is analogous to the position that we are discussing. The effect was instantaneous: the material was removed and promptly reappeared on the site of a foreign internet service provider. However, the Minister could consider a positive action—perhaps she has already considered it—that is more than the empty gesture that she is making. What is she doing about search engines? The danger of such material is not so much the people who know which websites to look for because they are already hooked, but those who enter terms into a search engine such as Google, which, as we know, is capable of deciding what it will produce if hit. Action on search engines would be of more practical value than what she is proposing today.

So, while Dr Lewis has reservations about the process for take down orders and the likely reaction of service providers on receiving such notices, he has absolutely no problem whatsoever with Chinese-style censorship of search engines. Such overt moves towards automatic online censorship would put us in interesting company; not just China of course but also alongside Singapore, Burma, the vast majority of Arab Islamic states including Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and, naturally, Iran, and South Korea, whose government has instructed ISPS to clock sites that are ‘too sympathetic’ to North Korea.

And what did Hazel Blears have to say to this suggestion?

My decision to give way to the hon. Gentleman is vindicated. As ever, he has knowledge and experience of such matters and makes a practical suggestion. I do not accept that our proposal is a gesture. I believe that it will have an impact on reducing the available material. However, I should like to investigate whether we could consider action—not necessarily in the Bill—to cover people who perhaps inadvertently go on to such websites and those who positively search for them.

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point.

Translated: “Thank you for bringing that up! Yes we have thought about it but we didn’t think we’d get away with putting anything like that is this bill. Maybe next time.�

However, the real killer statement is this one…

I should like to investigate whether we could consider action—not necessarily in the Bill—to cover people who perhaps inadvertently go on to such websites and those who positively search for them.

We have, again, another major issue alluded to but missed by Parliament.

Blears wants to investigate the possibility of action against people who deliberately search for ‘terrorist material’ – in short what she presumable wants to explore is the possibility of setting out a list of proscribed keywords and required search engines and ISPs to disclose all such searches to the police, who will then trace and investigate the individual carrying out the search, not censoring Google but using it to spy on what people are looking at on the internet.

In the absence of technology to read minds, monitoring search engines in this way is perhaps the next best option for any government that may be intent on detecting thought crime amongst its citizens.

Is should also point out here that where Blears says ‘not necessarily in this Bill’ she is not implying that a New Act of Parliament would be required for this to be put in place. If my reading of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is correct, then basic provisions for just this kind of monitoring are already in place, in principle, in Part I, Chapter II of the Act. This certainly, with some constraints, affords the majority of the relevant powers required for search engine monitoring to the extent that it may require only a bit of regulatory tweaking to make Blears’s thought-crime scanning system a reality, although I need to spend more time checking over RIPA to be sure how far away from ‘GoogleSpy’ we really are.

What else can I say for now but note that the more you look, the scarier this all gets.

In reporting that Lib Dem and Tory Peers may fight back against yesterday’s reinstatement of glorification in the Terrorism Bill, the Beeb include this gem of a statement from the Met.

Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorism chief Peter Clarke on Thursday said it was “hopelessly optimistic” to think the threat from al-Qaeda could be under control within five to 10 years.

Mr Clarke, the deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said there were more than 60 defendants awaiting trial on terror charge - an “unprecedented” number.

He also suggested there should be a new national structure to police terrorism.

Currently only police in London have substantial resources for tackling terrorism.

A new national structure to ‘police terrorism’ eh? Any thoughts on a name for this yet, Peter?

How about KGB? or perhaps Stasi would suit you better?

In the interests of separating the spin for the reality of yesterday’s proceedings in the House of Commons on the Terrorism Bill, this is what yesterday left us with in terms of ‘glorification’:

There is NO offence ‘glorifying terrorism’ in the Bill.

What Parliament reinstated were amendments which include glorification of terrorism in the new offence of ‘Encouragement of Terrorism’ - basically if you ‘glorify’ terrorism you encourage people to do it themselves in the opinion of our legislators.

The wording of this clause - give or take any minor tweaks to the wording by the Lords which were accepted - is as follows:

Encouragement of Terrorism

(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) he publishes a statement or causes another to publish a statement on his behalf; and

(b) at the time he does so—

(i) he knows or believes, or

(ii) he has reasonable grounds for believing, that members of the public to whom the statement is or is to be published are likely to understand it as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences.

(2) For the purposes of this section the statements that are likely to be understood by members of the public as indirectly encouraging the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences include every statement which—

(a) glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences; and

(b) is a statement from which those members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated in existing circumstances.

(3) For the purposes of this section the questions what it would be reasonable to believe about how members of the public will understand a statement and what they could reasonably be expected to infer from a statement must be determined having regard both—

(a) to the contents of the statement as a whole; and

(b) to the circumstances and manner in which it is or is to be published.

(4) It is irrelevant for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2)—

(a) whether the statement relates to the commission, preparation or instigation of one or more particular acts of terrorism or Convention offences, of acts of terrorism or Convention offences of a particular description or of acts of terrorism or Convention offences generally; and

(b) whether any person is in fact encouraged or induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate any such act or offence.

The Bill allows for two possible lines of defence against such charges:

1. I didn’t say that, someone else did and I didn’t know about it.

In essence, this protects bloggers, forum operaters and webhosts from being prosecuted for unsoliticted comments by third parties, but as we’ll go on to see, that doesn’t mean ‘we’re out of the wood’ yet.

2. I don’t agree with it, but this is what’s being said…

You can still publish statements which ‘glorify terrorism’ if you make it absolutely clear you disagree with them.

The provisions which appeared in the first draft of the Bill, when glorification was a separate offence, which limit its applicability to terrorist attacks in the last twenty years plus anything before that put explicitly on a designated list by the Home Secretary is no longer part of the Bill - taken to the letter of the law, glorification covers any terrorist or terrorist act at any time in history or just terrorism in general.

Hypotheticially, therefore, the list of terrorists and terrorist organisations and events that one could be prosecuted for ‘glorifying’ under this law includes; amongst others:

Hereward the Wake
Robin Hood
Wat Tyler and the Peasant’s Revolt
Charles Stuart (Bonnie Prince Charlie) and the Jacobite Rebellion
Michael Collins and, indeed, any prominant figure in the Irish Republican movement who advocated, supported or engaged in the ‘armed struggle’. The 90th Anniversary celebrations of the 1916 Easter Uprising are now, strictly speaking, unlawful in the UK.
Nelson Mandela and the African Nation Congress
Menachem Begin and the Irgun Tsvai Leuni
Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and any of the ‘Founding Fathers’ of the United States of America.

And, indeed, just about any armed resistance movement in history.

The lask of clarity here is breathtaking. Where, for example, do we stand on - legally speaking - on the English Civil War? Should we be arresting members of the Sealed Knot and if so which ones - Cavaliers or Roundheads?

Do we expunge the Boston Tea Party from the history books? Do we ban the playing of revolutionary anthems like the Marsellaise? Are the works of Mikhail Bakunin now banned? Are aging punks now required by law to throw away their old Brigate Rosse T-Shirts? Is Che now officially unpersoned - in which case if you scroll down to the bottom of the blog you’ll see that that’s me fucked for starters.

You see the problem here is not just the idea of ‘glorification’ but that of terrorism itself - what exactly is it?

There is a simple answer to this question yet one which politicians refuse to voice because it reveals an unpalatable truth - terrorism is simply the use of violence for political ends that the ruling elite of a particular society disagree with. The sole difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter genuinely is a matter of perspective - if you happen to agree with the political aims of the ‘terrorist’ then that legitimises, to some extent, their actions.

None of this negates the moral arguments that are inherent in considering the nature of terrorism - one can still quite legitimately take the view that the use of violence against unarmed, non-combatant civilians is morally wring in any circumstances but if one takes such a view as matter of conscience then one has to question the legitimacy of any such actions irrespective of who the perpetrators are or the cause they espouse.

This is ‘Orwellian’ legislation not in simplistic sense that it enacts curbs on free speech but in the more subtle sense that it embodies the principle of the shifting plains of Orwell’s perpertual war - today’s ‘legitimate’ resistance movement may well become tomorrow’s totalitarian regime or, more pertinantly, proscribed terrorist organisation.

And if that doesn’t convince you that this is badly drafted legislation, then take a look at the actual definition of ‘glorification’ in the Bill’s section on interpretation:

“glorification� includes any form of praise or celebration, and cognate expressions are to be construed accordingly;

‘Any form of praise… and cognate expressions’?

Just looking up praise on an online thesaurus gives this list of synonyms which could be used as ‘cognate expressions’

acclaim, admire, adore, adulate, advocate, aggrandize, applaud, appreciate, approve, bless, boost, bow down, build up, cajole, celebrate, cheer, cite, clap, commend, compliment, cry up, dignify, distinguish, elevate, endorse, ennoble, eulogize, exalt, extol, flatter, give thanks, glorify, hail, honour, kudize, laud, panegyrize, pay homage, pay tribute, proclaim, puff, rave over, recommend, resound, reverence, root, sanction, smile on, stroke, tout, worship

Looking at that list, some of those synonyms clearly fit the political spin surrounding glorification which suggests that what it will tackle are things like the unsavory sight of protestors demanding the beheading of Danish cartoonists.

But then you look at terms like ‘cite’, ‘dignify’, ’sanction’ and even ‘endorse’ and it becomes apparent that, again, taking the law at ‘face value’ the mere suggestion that terrorism may have been or be effective in creating or motivating political change - as might appear in a strictly factual historical account the the creation of Israel or the end of Apartheid in South Africa - could get caught up in this Bill given that a court, jury or government become minded to interpret it in such a way.

And who to say that, in future, one won’t.

Naturally, glorification also applies to clause 2, which covers ‘terrorist publications’ and, therefore, is included in clause 3 by default, which allows the Police to issue notices to webhosts requiring the removeal of content that the Police Officer in question believes to be in breach of this law.

So interesting points came out in the this about legislative language - ‘Constable’ we found out during the debate, actually means ’specialist anti-terrorist officer’ which in turns means Special Branch - oh, well at least that means my files going to be getting a bit thicker.

One also does not have to comply with these notices, although if one fails to do so and are then prosecuted, one uses the ‘did not know it was there defence’.

Now given that even since the first successful libel case against an ISP - Godfrey vs Demon Internet - ISP’s have garnered a reputation for having a hair trigger on complaints about ‘illegal content’ as well as a shed load of disclamatory legal boilerplate in the T&C, the chances of one turning around to the Police and saying ‘Sorry, we don’t agree with your interpretation of the content of this website in your notice’ are about the same as my chances of Osama Bin Laden becoming the next Pope.

And that was the point about introducing judicial oversight into this procedure - its not about the notices but about what will inevitably happen when such notices are received. Webhosts will not think it through, they’ll simply shut down the ‘offending’ site automatically and then hide behind their contractual T&C with the site owner - remember there is no right of appeal in this situation…

…and all on the opinion of a Police officer.

Judicial oversight of this process would ensure both that such notices are not issued without it being clear that a potential breach in law has occured - one sufficient to justify a Judge issuing what amounts to an interlocutory injunction - and afford a clear and open right of appeal against such notices, without which there are merely a means of largely unregulated state censorship.

BTW. For those who are interested in such things the title of this piece is, yes, from Shakespeare. Timon of Athens to be precise

I’ve always been the kind of person who’s mood is is very clearly reflected in my choice of reading and listening material - if it’s Kate bush on the stereo and I’m parked in the corner of the room reading Mervyn Peake then you know you’re on pretty safe ground with me.

This evening I decided to switch things around on my MP3 player and replace a fair bit of the more relaxed stuff I’ve been listening to for a while with a few old favorites…

…The Dead Kennedys, Black Flag/Henry Rollins, Rage Against the Machine, System of a Down - I guess you can see where this is going - and when I’ve finished this it’s off to the bookshelves to dig out a few bits annd pieces I haven’t read for a while; I strongly suspect the Hunter S Thompson collection’s about to resurface.

And then there is this…

The talk on a few blogs tonight - I won’t say which for the moment - is very much of what can we do to get rid of Blair/New Labour.

Sorry guys - you’re asking the wrong question there.

Seriously, Blair is not the problem, merely a symptom of the deeper malaise. You may well think that by working to get rid of Blair/New Labour you might just halt the creeping destruction of our civil liberties, maybe even secure a reversal of one or two of the more recent abyssal pieces of legislation.

Wrong.

Look at the edifice of social control that Blair and others are creating - I won’t go into detail here, you know what I mean. Take a real long hard look…

…and now ask yourself whether you truly, genuinely believe that any incoming government, whether its a straight switch to the Tories or some sort of loose coalition involving the Lib Dems, is seriously going to start dismantling that which Blair has built this last eight years?

You may a shift or two in economic policy, but can you really see any future government passing on ID cards and the power of the database state and seriously setting about taking it apart?

No. Me neither.

The problem here is not any one individual or any one political party but the whole rotten edifice; the modern political class that, today, dominates party politics, the managerialists and the state functionaries. It’s like a fucking hydra - you cut off one head (Blair) and two more grow back just as bad.

What is to be done?

I’m not entirely sure - there are ideas percolating around at the moment but nothing definite other than the sure and certain knowledge that if things are to change then we must find a way take the mandate to govern away from the existing political class - all of them.

We have maybe three, possibly four years before the next election - tine enough, I think, to get our thinking caps on…

…that is, if we really are serious about change.