Repealing Uncle Marvo's laws.

"there are now 1,242 pieces of legislation public servants can use to enter homes, including powers to search for unregulated hypnotists, a dancing bear without a permit, bovine semen or a fridge with the wrong energy rating."

And, apparently, (thanks to Al Jahom and the Times) if they win the election the Tories will remove some of those rights of entry, limiting access to private property without a Magistrate's warrant to only the Police or Emergency services, and then only if,

a serious criminal offence or clear threat to public safety was suspected.

The article goes on to say that

[The Tories] will ban state snoopers and clipboard inspectors from entering people's homes on a whim.

We will stand up for people who simply want privacy in their homes and liberty from Labour's snooper state.

And what does Labour have to say about this?

Labour casually forgets that they've made laws giving unelected and unnamed council access to a person's home, if they want, and have casually forgotten that they, Labour, during their 13 long years in office, made 1,242 separate bits of legislation, each one granting one sort of person access to an individual's home in one sort of situation - few of them could ever be called 'emergencies' or a threat to the neighbours - except presumably for the bovine semen, especially if it was still inside a bull.

Labour, in an attempt to belittle the idea, carefully ignores what the Tories have written and, specifically, worries about the gasman,

... there are occasions – for example where a gas fitter needs access to respond to a leak – when such a requirement could cause a catastrophic delay

They really don't get it, do they?

Labour still actually wants every Tom, Dick and Harry to be granted individual rights of entry, and want separate laws for every eventuality they can imagine - forgetting that there's already sensible legislation that covers things like that.

If there is a gas leak the emergency services would be called, and the gas would be turned off at the main - in the road outside. Nobody would ever expect a gas fitter to go into a property where there is a gas leak, it would be both foolhardy and dangerous. Elfin Safety would have a seriously hissy fit.

Whomsever needs access would be granted the right of entry without a warrant - because it is an emergency. If somebody suspected the gang-next-door of making bombs, it would be an emergency and a threat to public safety, so the Police/Fire Brigade would be called, and so on, and so on.

The hint is in the wording and the use of the well-worn word "emergency", and would not, presumably, include Ollie-next-door having a crafty cigarette out of the bathroom window and threatening the neighbourhood with instant death-by-tobacco-fumes. (And yes, people living next to Rigby Towers, the one-that-isn't-called-Ollie does, often - and he's old enough to smoke too, so please, either let him downstairs or send him into the garden. He's too old to be dangling out of windows and stopping everybody else from using the loo!)

Oh, and Mrs Rigby offers this post to Uncle Marvo, and claims a box of chocolates - for mentioning such silly laws as granting automatic right of access to a property to check for :-

"unregulated hypnotists, a dancing bear without a permit, or bovine semen"

Presumably, not all these laws could be broken at the same time, but who, in 2010 Britain, can be sure of anything any more?

....

"We will defend the state."

In a CiF piece, discovered thanks to Douglas Carswell, Mr Ed Miliband and Mr Douglas Alexander ask a few questions of the Tories and also outline the Labour Manifesto.

The title of the piece is "We will defend the state." - which says it all really. Their aim is to defend the state, not the people who live in Britain.

As for an Election Manifesto, what's the point? In July 2008 Judges decided that things said in manifestos aren't legally binding - not even a manifesto promise to hold a referendum about a Treaty that gave Britain away to the Eurocrats and, frankly, even if some politicians were told they had to keep their promises, it wouldn't worry them too much because, as these chaps know, there are quite a few things their own government has done, and continues to do, that have been ruled illegal by ECHR.

They criticise the Tory manifesto - but who's to know whether the Tories, Greens, Lib Dems or indeed any of the other political groups are telling the truth? A precedent has been set, so they could be making it all up - just to enjoy watching government tangle itself in knots trying to criticise their 'plans'. Perhaps they can afford a sleight of hand, are Labour's pockets as deep?

These two eminent politicians also write about "empowering" the electorate.

In the past 13 years, whilst their own government has been in power, the British "electorate" has become the most watched and most regulated of any other modern country.

It is this electorate that is referred to by their Prime Minister as "Flat Earthers" if they don't abide by the preaching of the new religion that is AGW - and he leads a government that has a "Respect Campaign".

It would be members of be the same electorate that can now be taken from their homes and kept away from their friends and families for as long as 28 days without being told why, who can be tried in a secret court of law without the benefit of a Jury, and also without knowing what evidence is being laid against them.

There was a time when tourists could stroll through the streets of London clutching their cameras, snapping away at buildings old and new to show their friends what they had seen - but not now, despite Police assurances otherwise. Thanks to Section 44 of the Terrorism Act anybody who wears a uniform or a badge, and has been on a special course, can challenge the freedoms of those who walk along public streets and bully the ignorant into deleting their holiday pictures. These people can also issue on-the-spot fines, called 'fixed penalty notices', and have them enforced without the scrutiny of the Judiciary.

The whole article reads like something out of Alice. It's been dissected by far better people than Mrs Rigby, so she won't say any more about it except to repeat the opening sentence :-

The TV series "Faking It" made compelling viewing because people were trained for high-flying jobs and either got away with it or got rumbled

.

ISA and the horns of a dilemma

.
Thanks to the implementation of new legislation that will be enforced by the ISA (Independent Safeguarding Authority) any adult who makes a formal arrangement to have any contact whatsoever with children will be required to undergo CRB checks, and have their information stored in a database. It will cost each individual £64. There's more information in the Telegraph.

There have been cries in the media and around the blogosphere that this is "unreasonable", that it "goes too far".

Chris Grayling has said

"We all understand the need for proper protection of our children but this new regime has the potential to be a real disaster for activities involving young people in the UK.

“We are going to drive away volunteers, we'll see clubs and activities close down and we'll end up with more bored young people on our streets.”

Chris Huhne has also condemned the legislation

“Children’s safety is paramount but we are in danger of creating a world in which we think every adult who approaches children means to do them harm.

“The creation of the world’s biggest checking system is a disproportionate response to the problem it is trying to solve.”

The Telegraph points out that

David Green, director of the think-tank Civitas, warned it may even make employers complacent and rely too much on the system instead doing their own “due diligence”.

But, of course, a Home Office spokesman is sure it's a good idea and said

... he rules for parents were "a commonsense approach", adding: "The UK already has one of the most advanced systems in the world for carrying out checks on all those who work in positions of trust with children and vulnerable adults.

"Set up in the wake of the Soham murders, the new Vetting and Barring Scheme will, from October this year, ensure these regulations are even more rigorous."

Mrs R recalls that Huntley was already on a database, but it referred to the wrong area, and he was not working in the school attended by the girls he killed. She wonders if they would have been protected had he been registered with ISA?

On balance she thinks probably not - because a database is only ever as useful as those refer to it; only as accurate as those who input the data and, sadly, there are always those who are willing to amend data for one reason or another - usually to do with malice, humour or money.

So let's see where this new regulation leaves us ordinary mortals who will have to live with the rules.

Mrs Rigby does a bit of voluntary work for a charitable organisation and can sometimes come into contact with children. These children are never at any time separated from their parents. It also only happens if it's been pre-arranged, because it's not normally part of the "job".

She thinks this legislation would apply to her - if she were to continue to offer to do "work" that involved pre-arranged contact with under-16s. She believes it would not apply if she no longer offered to do this sort of work, and left it to somebody else.

Mrs R is, however, concerned that if she doesn't take the initiative to register - an apparently one-of action - she could, to quote the Telegraph, face

a fine of up to £5,000 and a criminal record.

She believes the charity could also face prosecution for failing to ensure Mrs Rigby was registered and cleared as a not being a criminal.

The bleeding-heart brigade would tell Mrs R that if she's nothing to hide she's got nothing to fear, and she should go ahead and register and have her background fully checked.

But, umm, why?

Mrs Rigby knows she's never broken the law; she knows she has never been prosecuted; she knows she has no criminal record and she also knows it would never cross her mind to harm another person, let alone a child. So why, in order to be able to do her little bit of very enjoyable charitable work, should she have to fork out what is effectively a tax of £64 to get somebody else, probably on minimum wage to look through court records prove that what she says is true - especially if they could make a mistake and report that she's a hardened criminal?

Mrs Rigby would willingly, and very happily, swear an affidavit before a lawyer to say she is law-abiding.

Making such a declaration would also keep her name off the database and exempt her from what will no doubt in time be costly annual re-registration and re-checking ... because the unelected ISA will realise very soon that once isn't often enough, because people can change and turn into criminals overnight. That, after all, is one reason why the Police would like our DNA on record - because they're so sure we're all potential criminals.

On balance Mrs R doesn't think she should have to prove to anybody that she isn't a criminal, so she will no longer be offering her services at venues where there may be children. That means the charity will lose out. She wonders if this is what government intended - probably not, but they don't always think everything through to all possible outcomes, unless there's a political motive which brings me to the next point.

Mrs Rigby wonders how the Tories, Liberals or other political groups will be able to repeal, alter, or water down this legislation if and when they come into power and form a government. Simple answer is that they can't.

Why?

Because all it would take would be one single instance of a child being hurt by a nasty paedo who slipped through the net, as did Huntley, and they would be condemned forever for allowing kiddy-fiddlers to have access to children.

Mrs R believes that this is precisely why Labour has passed this poison-pill legislation.

They know they are likely to lose the next election, but they want to maintain control and know all too well that their successors will find themselves finely balanced on the horns of a dilemma - they will be damned if they attempt to repeal or alter the rules, and damned by the public for continuing to encourage the Big Brother State if they don't.
.