Regarding. The Draft Communications Bill. Cm 3859 June 2012.

  • 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
Making sure you know it is not just the Americans-as if we
didn't already know.
Further to the attachment

 Regarding. The Draft Communications Bill. Cm 3859 June 2012.

As this legislation affects everyone here in the United Kingdom, this
is an ?Open Letter?.

I find it very difficult to believe or understand that any freely
elected Member of the British Parliament and/or Members of the House
of Lords of the United Kingdom of Great Britain would ever entertain
the idea of the kind of Surveillance that is suggested, to cover the
whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as
proposed in the above Bill.

I come from an era that went through a full-scale war for FREEDOM to
govern this Country itself. No one minded letters opened etc in those
days, certain words might have been blacked out or paragraphs cut out,
and we were glad such security was activated-for we were at war. BUT
WE ARE NOT AT WAR NOW ARE WE? Red skies over Manchester that could be
seen for miles around Mrs May, at what should have been the darkest of
evenings in Manchester, December 22nd and 23rd 1940. A time when
landmines, high-explosive bombs and incendiaries rained death and
devastation on Manchester, Salford and Stretford. Hundreds of people
died and many were injured during those two-nights of intense bombing.
 By Christmas Eve, 31 acres of buildings within a mile of Albert
Square, lay in ruins. And NOW, the EU comes up with THIS!

The people in those days did not go through that war, the hardship,
the terrible loss of loved one serving in the forces and the loss of
those at home too, just to become victims, to be watched and listened
to by foreigners in whatever they do or watched where ever they go.
We went through that WAR for ?freedom? as those that went through the
first terrible World War for exactly the same reason. For freedom for
our own Countrymen and women to govern this Country according to its
long Standing Common Law Constitution. A constitution that has been
envied throughout this World, and copied by some, but ignored by those
in Parliament ?today?.

Had we not have gone to war THEN, many of you might not have been born
for Hitler would have ruled this Nation, and who knows when another
?Hitler? might be leader and we, because of Treaties ratified could
not change that leader? What then?

Terrorists can and do kill many innocent people, as both the United
Kingdom and the USA know from bitter experience through terrible
fanatical terrorists deeds. This legislation without doubt, and no
matter what precautions are put in place, will NOT prevent terrorists
from attacking again, for this is the world we live in ?today?.

The numbers killed in terrorist attacks, tragic and terrible as they
are, come no where near all those that gave their lives either
fighting or innocent people killed in the bombing of the United
Kingdom in that war- all for our freedom we have today. The terrorist
WINS if you allow this legislation go through. This legislation
removes all the ?RIGHTS? of innocent people. Rights, that other
innocent people have fought and given their lives for. We, the people
of this Country, surely cannot allow any of them to have died in vain.
 It is a time to shake ourselves free from the European Union. The EU
is all about control, and control of every aspect of our lives and
forever if they are given the chance. How much better to work with
others but never to be governed by them.

And now, we come perhaps to the final straw through the proposed Draft
Communications Bill. A Bill that allows others to spy on everything a
once free person does or says. A Bill that allows even Foreigners to
spy on each and every one of us here in the United Kingdom. To even
spy on all the children and Grandchild of each and every one in those
two Houses of Parliament if this Bill becomes an ACT-for it is for all
time- for this Legislation comes direct from the European Union in the
form of Directive 2006/24/EC. Ignoring the fact that previous EU
Directives allegedly protected certain communications.

How did we get to this stage though? Firstly, we noted Directive
95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October
1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of
personal data and on the free movement of such data. Next we note
DIRECTIVE 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and
the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector
(Directive on privacy and electronic communications, etc) and then to
the intrusive Directive 2006/24/EC, (I quote, ?a regulation replacing
Directive 95/46/EC?) which most of this article below this letter is

However that then leads to COM/2012/09 where the EU as a whole is to
take over in place of NATIONAL protections of their citizen?s privacy,
COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Safeguarding Privacy in a Connected World A
European Data Protection Framework for the 21st Century?.

We find that our own Government can be FINED heavily if they do not
apply this legislation. Would our own Politicians that the people
contribute to their pay and have freely elected, REALLY choose to have
this surveillance put upon their own people, rather than pay a fine?
Already it has been written in Newspapers that Britain has more CCTV
cameras than any country in the World. Will the day ever come that
CCTV cameras are installed in private homes? Why not indeed! I read
that it will cost FROM about 2 ?billion to apply this proposed Bill so
why not just refuse this Bill completely and pay the fine rather than
put this upon your own kin-folk?

Yet how or why can a Sovereign British Government allow a foreign
organisation dictate to what is supposed to be a freely elected
Government by the people in this once Sovereign Country-a Country THAT
Was it all for this full scale snooping into private innocent people?s
lives every day, every Year and for this information to go to
foreigners on the Continent? WHY? It does not make any sense at all.
 That all the people in the United Kingdom must suffer surveillance on
emails, phone calls or what ever, under commands from the European
Union? What is the point in paying our taxes, or electing any British
MP?s or filling both Houses of Parliament if none can actually Govern
this Country according to its long standing Common Law Constitution?
The people are being bled dry so that their Government can pay
?billions to the EU in Contributions.

Others fought for the very freedom nearly all of you in that House of
Commons are choosing to throw away ?today?, and as I am sure you are
also aware that this surveillance would be forever-permanently-or
until there is another and perhaps final way, of course, preferable,
one which is to withdraw from the European Union altogether. Are any
of you prepared to fight to stop this legislation? To fight for this
Country's freedom once more and for the people of this Country to only
elect and pay a British Government that can actually govern this
Country? We, the people certainly cannot under our own Constitution,
contribute in any way, even financially, to foreigners to make laws
that even our own Government has to obey. Two laws on Treason remain
to prevent such, not to mention, yet always to remember, that our
faithful and true solemn Oaths of Allegiance are to the British Crown,
praise be, and not any allegiance directly to any Member of any
Government, British or otherwise, no matter what kind of Treaties are
ratified without our permission. Violation of that Oath is indeed the
greatest betrayal of all.

I pray the day will come once again when we can look up to and respect
a British Government and be governed by our own British Common Law
Constitution. Had it not been for one magnificent British Prime
Minister that led us through that last World War, many of you in that
magnificent building may not have been born ?today?. I hope I live
long enough to see it back once more in ?safe hands?. Yet I grieve,
for all I see at present, are those that believe the words of fickle

It is with the greatest respect to you as holder of this once proud
nation and as Home Secretary of it, I enclose a few of my notes
regarding certain comments on a few Cases to the European Court of
Human Rights on this very matter of Surveillance of a whole once free
Nation State.

Yours faithfully,

Anne Palmer. JP retired.

To the Home Secretary, the Right Honourable, Mrs May re The Draft
Communications Bill. Cm 3859 June 2012.

In March 2006 the European Parliament and Council adopted the EU Data
Retention Directive (Directive 2006/24/EC)1 which provided for a
mandatory framework for the retention of certain communications data.
This was transposed into UK law in two stages. The Data Retention (EC
Directive) Regulations 2007 (S.I. 2007/2199) implemented the Directive
in respect of mobile and fixed line telephony. The Data Retention (EC
Directive) Regulations

2009 (S.I. 2009/859), which revoked and replaced the 2007 Regulations,
implemented the Directive with respect to the retention of
communications data relating to Internet access, Internet telephony
and Internet e-mail as well as mobile and fixed line telephony.


151. The programme to ensure the availability of communications data by

Telecommunications operators and for the obtaining of such data by law
enforcement agencies and relevant public authorities, enabled by Parts
1 and 2 of the Bill, is estimated to lead to an increase in public
expenditure of up to ?1.8 billion over 10 years from 2011/12. Benefits
from this investment are estimated to be ?5 ? 6.2 billion over the
same period. (How do they make that out? Can we really afford this?
Are yes, we reduce our forces, their equipment, and most of all the
ships and Aircraft Carriers so much needed as an Island Nation.)

I note that, The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) The main
article, Article 8 ? privacy of the European Convention on Human
Rights provides a right to respect for one's "private and family
life, his home and his correspondence? subject to certain restrictions
that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic
society". This article clearly provides a right to be free of unlawful
searches, but the Court has given the protection for "private and
family life" that this article provides a broad interpretation, taking
for instance that prohibition of private consensual homosexual acts
violates this article. This may be compared to the jurisprudence of
the United States Supreme Court, which has also adopted a somewhat
broad interpretation of the right to privacy. Furthermore, Article 8
sometimes comprises positive obligations: whereas classical human
rights are formulated as prohibiting a State from interfering with
rights, and thus not to do something (e.g. not to separate a family
under family life protection), the effective enjoyment of such rights
may also include an obligation for the State to become active, and to
do something (e.g. to enforce access for a divorced father to his

9. Communications data is information about a communication; it can
include the details of the time, duration, originator and recipient of
a communication; but not the content of the communication itself.
Communications data is used by the security, intelligence and law
enforcement agencies during investigations regarding national
security, organized, serious and volume crime. It enables
investigators to identify members of a criminal network, place them in
specific locations at given times and in certain cases to understand
the criminality in which they are engaged. Communications data can be
vital in a wide range of threat to life investigations, including the
investigation of missing persons. Communications data can be used as
evidence in court.

Page 96 Proposed UK Draft Bill, RE Malone Case mentioned page 96 Title
?Generally?. Article 8 paragraph (1).The case of Malone v UK (1984) 7
EHRR 14 (paragraphs 83 to 88) 8. It is well established that mail,
telephone and email communications are covered by the notion of
private life and correspondence in Article 8(1). The case of Malone v
UK (1984) 7 EHRR 14 (paragraphs 83 to 88) provides some limited
guidance on the application of Article 8 to State activities
concerning communications data:

??. a meter check printer registers information that a supplier of a
telephone service may in principle legitimately obtain, notably in
order to ensure that the subscriber is correctly charged or to
investigate complaints or possible abuses of the service. By its very
nature, metering is therefore to be distinguished from interception of

communications, which is undesirable and illegitimate in a democratic
society unless justified. The Court does not accept, however, that the
use of data obtained from metering, whatever the circumstances and
purposes, cannot give rise to an issue under Article 8. The records of
metering contain information, in particular the numbers dialed, which
is an integral element in the communications made by telephone.
Consequently, release of that information to the police without the
consent of the subscriber also amounts, in the opinion of the Court,
to an interference with a right guaranteed by Article 8.?

9. The primary function of Article 8 is to impose negative obligations
on States: States cannot interfere with Article 8(1) rights save where
such interferences can be justified under Article 8(2). There can be
no violation of this negative obligation by the actions of private
persons. The negative obligation does not therefore need to be
considered unless the person whose actions are being considered is a
public authority within the meaning of section 6(3) of the Human
Rights Act 1998 (?the HRA?).

10. However, Article 8 may also impose certain positive obligations on
States to adopt measures designed to secure respect for private life
even as between private persons. It follows that there may be a breach
of such positive obligations if the State requires private persons to
interfere excessively with the privacy of others, or in the absence of
adequate safeguards.

At point 21 The interferences with these rights will also be
proportionate for the reasons set out below, including the extensive
range of safeguards and

restrictions against abuse:

The European Court of Human Rights has accepted that States should be
accorded a wide margin of appreciation in this area (see Weber and
Saravia v. Germany (2008) 46 EHRR SE5, at paragraph 106), and it is
clear from Malone that the Court considers the acquisition of
communications data to be a less serious infringement of privacy
rights than the interception of Communications

(ii) It is essential that the UK is able to obtain communications data
in the interests of national security and the prevention and detection
of crime; WHY? To send to complete foreigners in the European Union?

(iii) The reduction in the availability of communications data will
have extremely serious consequences for the UK. The provisions in the
Bill are an essential component of the long-term strategy necessary to
mitigate the reduction in capabilities caused by the decline in the
availability of communications data, and to ensure that public
authorities continue to have sufficient access to communications data
to perform their duties and to support intelligence agency and law
enforcement activities.

Here below is part of the Judgment in the Malone Case, and there is no
point in having a Court on Human Rights if the Judges do not uphold
them at all times.

Press release issued by the Registrar of the European Court of Human

On 2 August 1984 at Strasbourg, the European Court of Human Rights
delivered judgment in the Malone case, which concerns the laws and
practices in England and Wales allowing interception of communications
and ?metering" of telephones by or on behalf of the police. The Court
unanimously held that there had been violation of Mr. James Malone's
right to respect for his private life and his correspondence, as
guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights1.
The Court further considered, by sixteen votes to two, that it was
unnecessary in the circumstances to examine Mr. Malone's complaint
under Article 13 of the Convention (right to an effective remedy
before a national authority). I have read of course the whole
transcript of the case and not just what is written here., The above
paragraph from here The whole case accessible also from here

The above case also refers to another case (Klass v Germany) along the
same lines which again comes to the same conclusion. Quote. ?The
Malone judgment complementing as it does the Klass judgment, in that
it arrives at a conclusion of violation by finding unsatisfactory a
system that is laid down neither by statute nor by any statutory
equivalent in Anglo-Saxon law, takes its place in that continuing line
of decisions through which the Court acts as guardian of the

Klass v. Germany, Klass and others v Federal Republic of Germany,
European Court of Human Rights (Series A, NO 28) (1979-80) 2 EHRR 214,
6 September 1978

FACTS: Legislation in Germany permitted the State authorities to open
and inspect mail and listen to telephone conversations in order to
protect against, inter alia, 'imminent dangers' threatening the 'free
democratic constitutional order' and 'the existence or the security'
of the State. Certain 'factual indications' had to be present before
such surveillance could be undertaken, which required the approval of
the supreme Land authority or a designated federal minister, on the
application of the head of one of four security agencies. The measures
lapsed after three months, but could be renewed. The subject of the
surveillance had to be notified after termination if it could be done
without jeopardizing the purpose of the surveillance, and a statutory
commission supervised this aspect of the system. The surveillance
itself was supervised by an official qualified for judicial office.
The Minister had to make regular reports on the law's use to an
all-party parliamentary committee; and the statutory commission
normally had to approve surveillance desired by the Minister.

At point 21 (ii) It is essential that the UK is able to obtain
communications data in

the interests of national security and the prevention and detection of
crime; End of Quotes. But this isn?t just about NATIONAL SECURITY is
it, because all this information is not just going to remain with
National Governments at all, because all this information is required
by the European Union, the private information re telephone calls,
e-mails etc are to be forwarded to and for the European Union, under
EU Directive 2006/24/EC. This is not just about one or two people?s
Telephone calls, or e-mails etc, or even letters, noted who to or
from. It is about the Surveillance of a whole NATION. A Nation whose
people fought and died for ALL OUR FREEDOM which between you all, in
that once greatly envied Houses of Parliament are paying dearly in
more ways than one, to give away-forever. Read in full also the
proposals in EU Document COM/2012/09 the security of our Country to
the EU.

Germany's highest court has ruled that spying on personal computers
violates privacy, but governments across Europe are under pressure to
allegedly help their security services fight terrorism and organised
crime. Sadly, as we know from bitter experience, as does America,
terrorists do kill many innocent people but all the surveillance in
the World will not prevent that from happening again and again.

All those innocent people that died in the UK in the last World War
for our FREEDOM must not allow the Governments of the UK or more
importantly, those in the European Union that put forward this most
intrusive legislation of all thus far, (Directive 2006/24/EC) to
destroy the freedom to govern ourselves that those many hundreds and
thousands of people that died fighting, or died through the bombing or
never survived the Concentration Camps of the last war, to have died
in vain. They sacrificed their lives for our freedom we are supposed
to have, ?today?, that through accepting and incorporating such as
this legislation we are, as a nation, going to lose it forever. If WE
do not fight for our freedom ?today?, they will have given their lives
for nothing and they will have died in vain. Anne Palmer.

21st June 2012 Joint Statement on the negotiation of a EU-U.S. Data
Privacy and Protection agreement by European Commission Vice-President
Viviane Reding and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder

 EU-U.S. Justice and Home Affairs Ministerial meeting: 20-21 June in

Who else is this data going to be shared with? EU-US joint
commitments on privacy and protection of personal data 28 March, 2012

EU-US PNR Agreement: A bad day for civil liberties in Europe 28 March, 2012

EU-U.S. joint statement on data protection by European Commission
Vice-President Viviane Brussels, 19 March 2012

EU Document COM/2012/09

Draft Communication?s Bill

The Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009


Share this topic...
In a forum
In a site/blog

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk