Cybermen should be shaking in their boots...

...the Doctor's back, and it's about time! I just watched the first episode tonight. It was jolly good fun, with some superb lines and comedy. I could really get to like Christopher Eccleston's Doctor!

Rose ain't too bad either, and not just because she's aesthetically pleasing to the eye... Billie Piper can act.

Some bits were a touch cheesy, but then that was true back when Tom Baker, or for that matter William Hartnell, were playing the role.

Anyway role on episode 2...

UK Govt can put control orders on those who are, on balance of probability, innocent...

Update (April 9th, 12:12 am BST):

I was mistaken about this matter. House arrest will actually require the balance of probabilities, but non-derogating control orders can be imposed on the "reasonable suspicion" test. Thus I have changed the title from "UK Govt to house arrest those who are, on balance of probabilities, innocent..." to the new title above.

Anyway sorry for the error. With all the fuss it was hard to keep up with the changes and it's only with my reading the actual Act of Parliament that I realised the mistake.

The extraodinary battles in the Houses of Parliament over the Abandonment of the Rule of LawPrevention of Terrorism Bill have done little to protect civil liberties. The main changes the Lords insisted on include:

• judges issuing all control orders
• the Director of Public Prosecutions declaring there's no possibility of prosecuting
• a sunset clause so that the legislation expires at end of November
• use of evidence gained from torture abroad prohibited
• the standard of proof being "balance of probabilities" instead of "reasonable suspicion"

Given that it will still be the case that suspects will not know the evidence or the charges against them, they won't be able to defend themselves and these changes are fairly minor (despite the fuss the government is making).

The most significant change is raising the standard of proof. Although this barely touches the problems with this bill, it gives judges greater room to decide that a control order is not justified.

With the "reasonable suspicion" standard, it is hard to see how one could seriously dispute the reasonable suspicion except by claiming it is unreasonable which begs the question of whether, in law, the Home Secretary, acting on advice and secret evidence from the security agencies, can ever seriously be regarded as acting on unreasonable suspicion.

ISTM thus that this standard of "proof" is a joke, and will ensure that the Home Secretary can still apply control orders to anyone he/the security agencies choose, with the judge acting as a mere rubber stamp.

With balance of probabilities, if a suspect has a sympathetic and independent minded judge, there is room for the judge to say he's not convinced it is more likely than not that the suspect is involved in terrorism.

Of course it is still a very subjective and arbitrary standard (unless they actually compute the probabilities, but how would one do that?) but it does give room for maneouvre.

Anyway, the government is tonight opposing this change. This has the logical implication that they want control orders imposed on people who would be judged more likely to be innocent than not...

And the govt claims it is doing this for our own good.

Control Orders: Just exactly what can they impose?

The media coverage/discussion of the proposed control orders has focussed on several possible things that can be imposed with them: house arrest, tagging, curfews, internet/phone bans and restrictions on who you can communicate with. However upon reading the legislation itself it appears that potentially any obligation could be imposed. Section 1(2) of the bill states:

A control order may impose any obligation on the individual against whom it is made that the Secretary of State considers necessary for purposes connected with preventing or restricting further involvement by that individual in terrorism-related activity (whether or not activity by reference to which the Secretary of State was satisfied for the purposes of subsection (1)(a)).

Section 1(3) of the bill lists numerous examples of such obligations, but does not restrict the control orders to the imposition of such obligations. The possible obligations listed are (to summarise section 1(3)):

• prohibitions/restrictions on the possession of articles or substances,
• prohibitions/restrictions on the use of specified services or facilities or on specified activities,
• restrictions on a person's work, occupation or on their business,
• restrictions on who one associates/communicates with,
• restrictions on one's place of residence or who is allowed to access one's residence,
• prohibitions on being in specified places/areas at specified times or on specified days,
• prohibitions/restrictions on one's movements to, from or within the UK or specified places/areas in the UK,
• requirements to comply with other prohibitions/restrictions on movement for a period not exceeding 24hrs, by directions given to him in a specified manner by a specified person for the purpose of securing compiance with other obligations imposed by the order,
• requirements to surrender one's passport or anything other possessions to which a prohibition/restriction relates to a specified person for the period of the control order,
• requirements to grant access to one's place of residence or other premises one has access to,
• requirements to allow searches of one's place of residence or other premises one has access to,
• requirements to allow items found in one's place of residence to be removed and retained by specifed persons for the period of the control order,
• requirements to cooperate with arrangements for enabling one's movements, communications and other activities to be monitored,
• requirements to provide information to a specified person in accordance with a specified demand,
• requirements to report to a specified person at specified times and places.

Thus it seems to me that a control order, in addition to possible house arrest or internet/phone bans, could require you to leave (or stay) in the country, move to another part of the country, allow your house and workplace to be searched, allow items to be seized from your house or workplace, and much else.

A further possibility arises: because "any obligation" can be imposed if the Secretary of State deems it necessary, perhaps one might even be required to keep the imposition of the control order on you secret from anyone you're allowed to contact, the excuse being it might alert other "suspected terrorists" that you've been surveiled.

Note that even if I'm wrong about an obligation to keep the control order secret, the restriction on association/communication could be used to ensure you cannot communicate with anyone except the authorities anyway!

The powers being given to the Home Secretary, even where falling short of house arrest, are thus extremely wide ranging and could make it impossible for people to defend themselves against the control orders.

Quite simply, this measure is worthy of a tyrannical dictatorship, and would put us in the same league as apartheid era South Africa or Communist East Germany.