We say no but we get it anyway.
Do you also find the latest consultation on police powers somehow reminiscent of the introduction of the child database? Prior to its introduction the minister announced at a public meeting that lack of funding had resulted in the database plans being pulled. This was then given a slightly different spin of “having listened to the public”. Whatever the reason the result was relief. Short-lived relief, as it happens because a database and accompanying “new working practices” were slipped in at the very end of the term of government and guess what? It cost half a million. So we didn’t have the money/ did listen to the public and ultimately went ahead with it anyway and had to apply for half a million to cover the costs.
Justice Bill was facilitated?
The Justice Bill also created waves and resulted in a commission of enquiry into the processes leading up to the introduction of the Bill. It seemed that neither the minister nor his advisor ( named specifically – not a figment of my imagination) could answer all the questions and ultimately the Chief Constable seemed to be the only person to be able to respond to certain issues raised. This left us wondering who was really introducing legislation. The minister actually told us that he was a “facilitator”.
Yet another example of copy and paste?
Could it be that the latest proposals on police powers relate to items that were queried the first time round? It’ s a lengthy document so I can’t vouch for this being the case but the measures do include:
Greater powers of seizure, taking of DNA samples and recording interviews
The consultation document includes a nice little preamble about our low-crime jurisdiction and leaves the impression that adopting the measures is essential if we are to achieve international respect. The usual stuff. More hoops to jump through and still we are reported as a known place of money laundering. But is this really about our reputation or is it about adopting UK policy which has originated in the EU? It almost appears that we have no choice about these things and that they are introduced one way or another. Our legislation is assuming an uncanny resemblance to EU legislation. I wonder why?