Striking the Right Balance between Privacy and Public Protect ion

[Ian G Batten]

On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Watkin Simon wrote:
> > I'm also unconvinced by stories that the whole thing was a blunder.
> 
> Believe me.  Big blunder.

There is the view that you shouldn't ascribe to malice that which cannot
be explained by incompetence.  But since the usual Home Office reponse
to criticism is to furiously insist that everything they do is right,
and anyone who disagrees is a friend of terrorism (the basic position of
the guys from the HO at SfS2), I am disinclined to use that argument in
this case.  If it really _is_ a case of a keystone piece of legislation
in the fight against terrorism being scuppered by a ``big blunder'',
presumably someone carried the can and took responsibility.  Since they
didn't, I'm afraid my view is that Home Office tried to grab as much
power as they could in case they needed it later, got caught, and is now
spinning furiously in order to disown responsibility.

> > Some may say that this is all history. I say that it is evidence of 
> > the character of the Home Office and as such is relevant to their 
> > likely future conduct.
> 
> As some of you know I went to do another job for several months.  Asked what
> I do now, I say, "remember the Home Secretary said we dug ourselves in a
> hole, my job is to fill it in".

So your argument is that the department engages in ``big blunders'', but
if we trust them, it'll all be OK?

> > I suspect that such a line is a very convenient one for an official 
> > to spin. "It's not us, it's Blunkett's fault that we can't tell you 
> > about this second order". 
> 
> One person not to blame for any of this is the Home Secretary.

Oh, isn't the Home Secretary responsible for SIs issues by the Home
Office?  Who is, then?  And people wonder why voting isn't taken
seriously anymore.

Simon: a simple question.  When that SI was issued, which _elected_
member of government of the United Kingdom was responsible for it?

ian