Further to my earlier blog post, here is some good news about Lib Dems standing up for civil liberty. In a letter to the Guardian fifteen of our MPs have spoken up for the party. Not just over the last 48 hours but over the last months and indeed the years that I have been a member of supporter, in other words since the Lib Dems were founded.

They say:

It is absolutely vital that the public get a chance to see and debate the details of any proposals to extend state surveillance, not just being presented with a Home Office fait accompli. It is also essential that the initial plans include adequate safeguards – which should be stronger than the current weak controls.

They talk about the "duty … to safeguard basic freedoms against the encroachment of state power" and that at the recent conference (and it was only last month not months ago) conference "called for stronger safeguards on existing surveillance measures to guarantee that the balance of power is firmly in favour of ordinary citizens".

They got it and these are just the sort of firm messages that Nick Clegg and other Lib Dems should have been saying since Sunday when this story reared its head again.

Indeed when the coalition agreement already states  "We will end the storage of internet and email records without good reason." We shouldn't be talking about extending police powers in this area but working out what comes under good reason and how to delete the storage of the rest.

Speaking in The S** today (and I apologise for this link) Theresa May says:

"I'm not willing to risk more terrorist plots succeeding and more paedophiles going free."

Just how does further encroaching on personal freedom achieve this. As Trefor Davies from the Internet Service Providers' Association states these groups will just go ahead and use proxy servers. As he say by doing so

"You could send emails back and forth to al-Qaeda to your heart's content, the Government wouldn't know."

And as for paedophiles:

"There is a danger we are driving people to an underground culture."

As anyone who uses certain websites whether global LGBT ones or other things for certain human rights discussions will tell you, mirror sites to proxy servers exist even for some of these and you would have no clue simply from the traffic that it generates what is going on. If you even could see the traffic report.

So why haven't us Lib Dems been standing up against this as a matter of principle not merely saying we will make sure that any extension of powers is highly safeguarded. The worry is that extension of powers will be given to the police without supervision. We are looking for greater safeguard on the existing powers while Mrs May says that the police cannot afford to lose any of their existing powers.

There is a red line there, one that is marked out in the coalition agreement. If we don't stand firm on this one, what will become of our party? Worryingly although these 15 have now stood firm, why haven't our frontbench team done it already?

We don't give the police blanket warrants

Generated via RedKid
Based on characters by Charles M. Schulz

Should the police be able to gain internet records of terrorists or criminals in order to help them with their job, bring about justice and keep us safe?

Of course they should.

Should they be able to do this carte blanche on their own say so without making the case to either a judge or a Home Office minister?

Of course not and therein lies the problem with the current draft legislation that has been proposed. That is why only last month the Liberal Democrats at conference did call to ensure "that there shall be no interception of telephone calls, SMS messages, social media, internet or any other communications without named, specific and time-limited warrants".

The current scheme apparently under consideration removes the power for police to have that authority to take action. They can do it on their own judgement. This is the same police that take pictures of me on parades and marches of various types in case I might be a terrorist or potential looter. This is the same police that take pictures of me going towards football matches because of course Livingston Football Club has a long history of violence, not!

We don't give the police a blanket warrant to enter home that they wish to do so, nor do we allow them blanket access to any phone line. Yet Theresa May is saying that extending just such a right to social media and email brings it in line with powers that that police already have with phone records. No! It crosses over that line. Retrospectively convincing somebody of the right to access is not the same as acquiring a warrant up front, a warrant is for a specific person, reason and time.

Of course if the police can persuade a judge or minister of the need to intercept someone's communications that is different matter. But they have to persuade them of the need and gain the specific warrant before taking action. They should not have the right to act as judge, arbitrator of need, surveillance officer and arresting officer should the need arise for the latter.

The coalition agreement even upholds this principle that "We will end the storage of internet and email records without good reason." We need a better reason that simply because the police think so to extend that right to them. It needs to be backed up by the case by an independent arbitrator of the law. Protecting not only those doing the surveillance but also the right of those the surveillance is carried out on to be assumed innocent until proven otherwise. Mrs May may not like the right of people to be presumed innocent, yet as Home Secretary she has to uphold that pinnacle of UK law or else we all have failed.


I do hope that this illiberal extension of power does not get passed by our Liberal Democrat MPs. If it does I will seriously have to work out how to stand by the words of someone that if our liberties were taken away that we should consider civil disobedience to ensure they are returned, yes those words were from Nick Clegg.

Not every one in a public story is public property

Eric Joyce has made the news again today. I'm not going to be linking to any of the articles and here is the reason why.

The reason he has made the news was that he is accused of an affair with an at the time 17 year-old student at one of the high schools in his constituency. Someone who was working in his constituency office. She also co-chaired the debate at her high school, one of those at which I stepped in as agent because our Lib Dem candidate was working at the time and unable to get time off.

That was where I first met the teenager in question. Like Eric Joyce I was one of her friends on Facebook and mutual followers on Twitter and this is where the reason I am not linking to the story kicks in.

The Tabloid has used Facebook pictures of an intern working in an MPs campaign office and Tweets between the two as evidence of an affair. I think of all the young party activists who appear in campaign shots across all parties across Facebook all the time. Many of our younger members love to bag as many pictures as possible with the big names when they come to campaign, so it is hardly surprising that pictures of a young campaigner with big names appears on Facebook. She was a keen, politically knowledgeable and active teenager.

Like Eric I also asked via Twitter how the result of her exams went when they came through, I do the same for anyone looking forward to exam results on my feed every year, especially those I've met and know. I also wished her a happy birthday when she finally turned 18 after the election, one thing that emerged during the question on votes at 16.

However, there is an accusation that the affair has been going on for the last 2 years. But, the young lady in question has the right to move on without the baggage of such a story being around any current or future relationship she may have. I notice today that her Facebook profile has been taken down, her Twitter account has been protected for some time. Whatever the interest in the story this is someone who is still only 19 that has been plastered across the papers today, this is someone who through the interconnetiveness of social media has maintained friendships with a mixture of political people.

Yet this is someone who feels hounded today by the tabloid press.

While the rich and famous attempt to hide behind super injunctions young people can be preyed on by the press. In this case there are quotes from members of the Falkirk Constituency Labour Party. It is likely that the identity of that nineteen year old was given to the press by one of them in a final attempt to push the resignation or at least deselection of the MP. But in doing so they have made her collateral damage, seemingly without thinking of the consequences that have unravelled today. As someone who knows her reading my twitter stream today has made horrid reading.

As Johann Lamont the leader of the Labour in Scotland says: 

 "If these reports are true, [Eric Joyce] is a man who has abused his position of power and authority."

He alone has the case to answer to if he found to have abused his position of authority. It is not open season to spread lies, or even just dig scurrilously for any fragment of truth, if there is any, and potentially ruin someone whose live has moved on. It is not right to have slain down a 19 year-old as collateral damage.

A Question of Sexuality - or Not

As a family genealogy geek I've spent a lot of time recently looking through the PDF files of the Irish Census from 1911. Indeed some friends will doubtless tell you of my excitement as the time for the County Londonderry returns to go online earlier in the year.


I know the importance in history of the accuracy of the information that is given. I also like the fact that some relatives have given extra information* not required, but which for history makes things easier to look into a verify. Therefore when I heard that the Government were considering adding a question about sexuality to the 2011 census I thought about whether this was a good idea or not.

There are two official takes on it, first there is the one of my former colleagues at the Office of National Statistics (ONS) who say that it won't provide a true reflection of the number of gay, lesbian and bi-sexual members of society. Then there is view of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) who say it is vital to know how many gays, lesbians and bisexuals there are in Britain, where they live and what jobs they do so the progress of equality legislation can be measured.

I'd say that both are partially correct. The inclusion of the question isn't going to give an accurate reflection, indeed one of the most misrepresented groups would be the bi-sexual population. Anyone who spends anytime around the gay community will know that they are people out there who will say 'I'm not gay but...' the but is of course that they will happily engage in sexual acts with those of the same sex. There will be bisexuals out there who are in monogamous (or not**) 'heterosexual' relationships and not all of them will be totally open telling their partner that is the case, so to fill it in on a census form would definitely be out.

The census is there to gather an accurate picture of the population, the question of sexuality is not even one that every member of society is able to answer. Coming out is hard enough for many of us, to possibly feel obliged to do so, or lie about it on a census form when others around you are filling it in is an issue. In fact looking to see what would have happened in previous census returns for myself in 1991 I was denying my own sexuality, so would not have given an accurate return to that question. In 2001 I had just moved in with my ex-fiancée's parents, who fortunately did know my sexuality, but could have been embarrassing otherwise. That is just me, and while I don't wear it on my sleeve it is not something that is hidden from people around, people who will also appear on a census return.

What about people in residences of multiple occupancy? I notice the wording of the question appears to only cover straight, bi or gay. So what about the whole grey area of transgender/transsexual identities? Or what about asexuality or polyamorous relationships? Indeed it is a very complex issue and not one that can be passed of in one question and tick box. A spokesperson for the ONS said:

"A suite of questions would be necessary to collect data on the different dimensions of sexual orientation, including attraction, behaviour and identity."

Even then are we using the Kinsey scale for each of the three aspects? Indeed passed on the three question option my answers will have been changing over the last two census years and will be different again at the next one.

Yeah I know we already have the optional question about religion, but people are more prepared to talk about that, or simply write in Jedi. However, there is talk of rephrasing that question as a two-parter, the first asking "Do you identify with a religion?" then the yes respondents filling in which.

Obviously I'm not advocating 'don't ask, don't tell' as that hides more things behind the scenes than a level of openness will provide. However, I'm with the ONS on this one. The question cannot be worded in a way that will provide an accurate measurement, at this time. For starters it is not a complete question, second while there many out there are gay and proud, there are also many who are bi and shy.

From personal experience I would say that many straight and especially religious people may be opting out of answering the question. Indeed many religious groups are already saying it is an invasion of privacy. There is also as I pointed out liable to be a skew to the gay and straight responses and the bi-sexual (and others) segment of identity is going to be under-represented through a number of reasons. Or course that is personal anecdotal opinion and not quantitative (which some will argue is the point of the census question) but I think if there was a way to measure it (which I don't think there is) it would bear out in practise.

*Examples include cities rather than just County or other UK Country. Widow(er)s including length of marriage and children details when this was only requested of couples.

** Though I'll focus on the monogamous ones rather than those that also cheat, not a condition restricted to gay or bi but also present amongst the straight community, in case Jan Moir is reading this.

Keep out of My Face......book Jacqui

In my past I have had a KGB, Securitate and Stazzi file. Some of them must have been an interesting read.

The KGB file must have mentioned my visits to a youth detention centre, a prison, several hospitals, the local fire station, orphanages and my association with non-state registered Christians and giving two red guards a lift in our team minibus. The Securitate file may well detail all the contents of my suitcase that was forced open at Bucharest airport on the way to a school ski trip, the Sunday Times article on Nicolae Caucescu I'd avidly read on the flight over along with the rest of the magazine as I doubted even before being told that I'd not get that into the country.

However, none of those would be as anything compared to the file that this government must be compiling on me. Forget the fact that the majority of my daily emails on my work account are of a proprietary nature and the government could be sued under US law if my employer were so inclined. Forget the fact that as a result the government will know just where I will be campaigning, have the minutes of local party execs and who is feeding me information for my blog.

Now they want to access my social networks. Circumventing the privacy settings that I set up so that only certain people can see certain bits of that. Not you understand for terrorist ends but because they are private and not to be broadcast to the world. They want to know who I flirt with, what gifts I've been sent, what I think of the thought for the day. I have friends on Facebook in all political parties.

Do they really need to know how Iain Dale makes me blush? What Lord Faulkes's right hand woman Kezia Dugadale is saying to me? Or how one of my Nat supporting fellow Livingston fans is tackling me on the issue of the day?

What about my Northern Irish friends? Two of whom at least have relatives that have been in prison for terrorist activities. Is the fact that I am friends with them making me guilty by association?

What about our elected representatives on Facebook? Many of them use it as a tool to reach there constituents, one has even held an online surgery through the medium. Surely such communication between an MP, MSP, AM, MLA or Cllr and their constituent being held on such a database is a breach of confidentiality and guidelines.

Jacqui 'Big Sister' Smith is taking a knee jerk reaction, one that doesn't take into account the consequences of her actions. If you want to read my emails, if you want to see my Facebook, MySpace, Bebo or anywhere else details come to me with a warrant, the same goes for everyone else. If you have a suspicion against me go the whole hog.

Don't leave me naked and exposed with no privacy and the chance of having my details being exposed without my knowledge or consent by storing them on a third party data base on an off chance that I am one of the 3,000 suspects you think are in this country.