Yet More Security Theatre Legislation

The inclusion of both the Hillsborough Law and Martyn’s Law in the King’s Speech is a big moment for people power. Assuming they are implemented, these measures will do very different things – the first places a duty on public officials to comply fully with inquiries and requires bereaved families to be given fair legal funding. The second will ensure that public venues cater for the threat of terrorism in their risk planning.

Those public venues being any holding 100 or more. So your local church hall hosting women’s whist drives and bake sales, plus your neighbourhood pub, must now have a terrorism risk assessment and plan. Who thinks that’s sensible, or necessary?

The Hillsborough families have been fighting for justice on various fronts since 1989 but calls for this piece of specific legislation grew out of the second coroner’s inquests into the football disaster, which ended in 2016 and established that those who died were unlawfully killed. The inquests became an adversarial battle between the families and agencies including the police, and the law was proposed to stop other bereaved families from going through the same thing. It means there will be “a duty on public authorities and servants to tell the truth and proactively assist inquiries”, says Pete Weatherby KC, one of its chief architects.

But what the Hillsborough families have been fighting for could be said to be ‘absolution’, not justice and they’ve already had it. So why the need for more kow-towing to them? 

Martyn’s Law, meanwhile, was the brainchild of Figen Murray, whose son Martyn Hett was murdered in the 2017 Manchester Arena attack. The venue had been under no legal duty to provide a plan in case of a terror attack. Figen noticed this gap in the legislation relating to safety at public venues and made it her personal mission to close it.

I don’t disagree that Martyn was failed, but can it be said that he was exclusively failed by the venue, and only by the venue? Do the police and ambulance services not bear some of that criticism?

Martyn’s Law went through two public consultation exercises, the second of which was prompted by criticism of the proposed legislation from the Home Affairs Select Committee last spring. The committee had warned that it had “serious concerns” about the financial burden that could be placed on smaller venues. It also said the aims of the bill as it stood were “unclear”.

And despite that, it was rammed home regardless. To win votes, I guess. 

Another Case Of 'Working As Intended'..?

Terror suspects like Shamima Begum could be treated like victims if they exploit modern slavery laws, the terrorism watchdog warned last night.

Would anyone be surprised at this? 

It sparked calls for an inquiry into claims the Met and the government knew the alleged people smuggler was responsible for helping Begum and her two fellow schoolgirls join ISIS while also working as a double agent.

Would anyone be surp ... oh, I'm just repeating myself now! 

He's not right on everything, mind you:

Mr Hall voiced particular concerns with the idea that a child recruited to a terrorist organisation was automatically a victim, 'if they did so entirely of their own free will'.

'It is at odds with the fact that children are not generally seen as victims when they commit other crimes, just because someone suggests they should do so,' he added.

Well, I guess he's spent so long on terrorism that he's failed to see the direction the wider justice system has been heading in. 

These Places Are Exactly Where Intelligence Gathering Is Needed...

A mosque attended by Manchester Arena suicide bomber Salman Abedi and his family says it has suffered 'smearing and demonisation' after claims it turned a 'blind eye' to extremism.

That hardly makes it unique... 

Earlier this month lawyers for the families of the bereaved said it was accepted the mosque was in no way linked to the bombing or the radicalisation of Salman Abedi, who carried out the deadly bomb attack after an Ariana Grande concert on 22 May 2017. But it was claimed the mosque had hosted extreme Islamist sermons, failed to condemn violence and 'buried its head in the sand' over radicals in its congregation.

Gosh, how, err, unusual. But no doubt this will be dismissed as the ravings of 'Islamophobes', right? 

Well, it's going to be difficult... 

An Imam at the mosque, Mohammed El-Saeiti, who delivered a sermon condemning terror groups, told the inquiry trustees believed speaking up against terrorists would 'provoke' its sympathisers and supporters. The mosque then failed to support him when he faced a petition for his removal signed by, among others, Ramadan Abedi, father of the bomber. He said after the bombing the mosque's solicitor, a Mr Hafezi, pressured him to not mention the Abedis' links to the mosque.

Heh! 

The statement said it had tried to keep politics out of the mosque, adding: 'Mosques are places of worship and should not become places where intelligence gathering on people's lives and politics should take place.'

Sounds like these places are exactly where it should take place to me... 

Now They Are Worried..?

Sir Lindsay Hoyle spoke to Boris Johnson and Home Secretary Priti Patel following the fatal stabbing of the 69-year-old MP in his Southend West constituency.

He added: 'Those people who do not share our values or share democracy, they will not win and we won't let them win. We will continue to look at security, that is ongoing and it will continue.'

Very Churchillian, Sir Lindsay, but Churchill fought to keep the Nazis from landing at Dover. 

What's Border Farce doing under Priti Patel? Escorting them in by the hundreds... 

Every politician is currently thought to have had a security assessment in the constituency, and they get a 'standard' package such as alarm systems, shutters, CCTV and personal alarms for staff.

However, there are concerns that most of the measures are applied to offices and homes, while surgeries often happen at churches or other buildings that might not be secure.

That sounds like a failing of security assessments then. A gap you can drive a truck through.  

A senior Parliamentary source told MailOnline: 'The Commons will have a complete review again. Police need to be at surgeries. It is the only solution.'

We don't have enough police to keep our streets safe, and you want more of them standing idly by while Mrs Miggins complains about the amount of dog poo on the street outside her house? 

It's not, of course, the only solution at all. And you know it.