Slowly catching up to BLOGDIAL

September 23rd, 2006

I just saw this webisite thanks to SpyBlog. It is from the Liberal Democrats who are proposing a ‘Great Repeal Act’ to sweep away unnecessary laws.

“We need a single act to roll back a generation of illiberal legislation and illiberal regulations; a single act to dismantle the apparatus of authoritarianism that has been forced on the nation,” says Nick Clegg.

Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats have identified a list of the top ten laws we don’t need, but you can also submit your suggestions, whether they are for a small piece of annoying detail, laws that have been overtaken by events or laws that were never a good idea.

Now. I know for sure that somewhere on BLOGDIAL I talked about setting up a website where people can enter legislation that they want removed from the statute books and vote on other laws that other people have inserted, but I cannot for the life of me find the post, either in the new or the old BLOGDIAL. A lollipop to the person who finds the text.

Either way, here is the LibDem List:

1. Restrictions on protests in Parliament Square
Sections 132 to 138; Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005

The police can now impose any restrictions they think fit on demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament Square. Citizens of this country should not have to ask for the right to protest outside the Parliament that they elect.

2. Identity Cards
Identity Cards Act 2006

Identity cards are unworkable, expensive and illiberal. Labour is already spending £95,000 a day on developing the project but it will not stop terrorism, crime, illegal immigration or benefit fraud.

3. Extradition to the US
Part 2, Extradition Act 2003

This act makes it much easier for the US to extradite people from the UK than it is for the UK to extradite people from the US. Not only is the treaty unbalanced, but it means that British citizens can extradited without any evidence being provided.

4. Conditions on public assemblies
Section 57, Clause 123, Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003

Labour has given the police the power to impose conditions on any protest or gathering even if just two people attend. Until 2003, these restrictions could only be imposed on larger gatherings, of 20 people or more. There is no reason to curtail the right to protest in this way.

5. Criminalising trespass
Sections 128 to 131, Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005

Thanks to this part of the act, a Home Secretary can make trespass a criminal offence on any land where they say it is in the interests of national security. This is defined very broadly however – and there is no need for them to justify their decision. If there is a need for restrictions like this they should be agreed democratically.

6. Control orders
Section 1, Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005

These allow restrictions, potentially going as far as house arrest, to be imposed on the mere basis of ‘reasonable suspicion’. They can be made for up to 12 months and renewed indefinitely. The Home Secretary can also decide to opt-out from the European Convention on Human Rights and issue control orders that amount to detention without trial. Liberal Democrats would repeal the law and start again: the Home Secretary should not be allowed to opt out of our human rights agreements, or impose control orders outside the judicial system.

7. DNA retention
Sections 78-84, Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001
Sections 9-10, Criminal Justice Act 2003

The UK has the largest DNA database in the world, but many of those stored on the system have never been charged with, let alone convcited of, a crime. Thousands of innocent children are on the database – because the police have the power to take DNA when they arrest someone and then keep it permanently, even if the person turns out to have done nothing wrong. Ethnic minorities make up 8% of the UK population but 24% od the database. We understand the case for keeping DNA of the convicted, but innocent people’s DNA should not be kept indefinitely.

8. Public interest defence for whistleblowing
Official Secrets Act 1989

It is important that national security is protected, but sometimes it will be the case that it is in the public interest that malpractice or illegal activity is exposed. The Official Secrets Act includes no public interest defence, however – so whistleblowers remain unprotected, even if their action is very much in the public interest. Part of the reason for this was a series of high-profile embarrassments for the Conservative government of the time; ministers’ embarrassment should not be allowed to overrule the public good.

9. Right to silence
Sections 34-39, Public Order Act 1994 – England and Wales

It was a long-established principle of a fair trial that defendants had the right not to be forced to incriminate themselves. In 1994, however, the Conservatives allowed juries to draw adverse inferences from a defendant’s silence. This represented a major attack on the idea of “innocent until proven guilty.”

10. Hearsay evidence
Sections 114-136, Criminal Justice Act 2003

Protections against the use of hearsay evidence were in place to ensure that a trial was decided on the facts of the case. Hearsay evidence cannot in practice be cross-examined in court, which removes a vital safeguard for the accused. Labour, in 2003, widened the circumstances in which it could be used. We would repeal these changes and return to focussing on securing fair trials and reliable convictions.

Applicability: this item refers to the UK. […]

Liberal Democrats

Amazing, the first one is the LEAST OF OUR PROBLEMS, and the most symbolic.

Liberal Democrats have their hearts in the right place (hell, they HAVE a heart unlike the other monsters!) but sadly are as thick as shit…..

Before we fire up Rails, lets add to this list shall we?

  • The Maastricht Treaty
  • R.I.P.A.
  • The Criminal Justice Act of 1994
  • All drug classification law that makes ‘drug taking’ illegal
  • Parts of the Wireless and Telegraphy Acts
  • Computer Misuse Act 1990

Oh dear, there are SO MANY.

To repeat, in case no one finds my original text, you do this list by setting up a website, where the entire legislation of the country is stored. You then invite people to go there and search for law that is bad. They are then presented with some radio buttons and a form to post comment in that is attached not only to the ‘top’ of every law, but to every clause and section of each piece of legislation.

The radio button will give you two choices;’keep’ and ‘discard’. Votes are tallied and we present a REAL top ten THOUSAND of laws that need to be repealed.

The comment boxes are for posting your rationale for any piece of law being kept or discarded.

Its that simple. Some MySQL, Rails (or PHP) and its done. Then we can …. hmmmmm … I might have found it:

What we need to do now is to complete these documents using the above guidelines. We then need to take the next step, which is to prune the existing legislation of the UK, removing all offensive and illiberal laws. We do this by writing down a list of laws that are to be removed from the statutes at the next election on an emergency basis.

We will charge the conservatives with this task since that is the easiest route; should they balk or refuse, we will create our own party with this sole agenda. If we win the same number of votes that Bliar did to gain power, we will consider ourselvs the winners, and then assert our rights. Parliament would be nullified and our new government put in place by default; a government created by the electorate and obedient only to the electorate. […]


Which takes care of the ‘Liberal Democrats will never win an election’ problem.

While I’m at it, the LibDems want to remove ID cards, but they want you to pay a LOCAL INCOME TAX to replace your rates, which means that every council has to get into your private stuff; another layer of mass intrusion. Like I said, they are not very smart people. BUT they seem to be getting smarter…by definition, anyone that moves towards the BLOGDIAL position is smarter.

But you know this!


4 Responses to “Slowly catching up to BLOGDIAL”

  1. BLOGDIAL » Blog Archive » Stiff upper lips missing Says:

    […] problem is that they are passing them at all. They need to be REMOVING legislation, not adding it. And you need to stop looking to them like a sheep and to start disobeying. My generation wanted […]

  2. The Post-Bureaucratic Age | BLOGDIAL Says:

    […] to be removed from the statute books, and this should be the sole purpose of any new parliament; to remove legislation, not create new legislation. And it had better happen very […]

  3. Those Who Can Says:

    […] is just what we expect from a party filled with irrational people. I have several problems with siding with this subjective piece of rubbish. As a libertarian, I say […]

  4. BLOGDIAL » Blog Archive » Jeremy Yallop Destroys Simon Webb and Badman in the TES Says:

    […] Not surprisingly, we have been over this before on BLOGDIAL, 2006. […]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.