Welcome To Zelo Street!

This is a blog of liberal stance and independent mind

Tuesday, 3 November 2015

Newton Dunn Snooping Hypocrisy

The spooks have been on a PR offensive as the legislation previously called the Snoopers’ Charter returns, although this time it is not really as bad, honestly. And while some journalists have done their job and asked whether there is any need for MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to be able to do even more snooping without judicial approval, those at the Murdoch press have, as ever, gone into cheerleading mode.
This is especially true of the Sun’s non-bullying political editor Tom Newton Dunn, who brought his readers an alleged exclusive late last month: “THERESA MAY WILL REFUSE TO ALLOW JUDGES TO SIGN OFF SPYING WARRANTS … She says secretaries of state must retain the eavesdropping authority”.

This features A Government Minister, who told “It would be totally irresponsible of government to allow the legal system to dictate to us on matters as important as terrorism. Not only would they tie things in knots very quickly, but they are not elected and answerable to nobody … Who is held to account by the public if a bomb gets through because they refused to sign off a warrant?

Yeah, they’ve got a bomb and they’re coming for you, Sun readers! And Theresa May was offering a compromise: she “will suggest judges could  review warrants retrospectively after they have been signed off”. But his move was important, because the terrorists are out there NOW and “all judges’ spying decisions could be judicially reviewed under controversial human rights laws”. Then, yesterday, the Sun man was at it again.

TERROR QC SAYS JUDGES ARE TOO IGNORANT TO SIGN OFF SPYING WARRANTS … Lord Carlile said only a handful of judges understand the threat to the UKscreamed the headline. Carlile was called a “top terror QC”. Bullshit. Alex Carlile is an apologist and obedient conduit for the spooks. Snooping is subject to judicial oversight precisely to prevent political interference. Carlile is full of wind and piss (as usual).

But the message is clear: The Sun Says snooping is fine, and sometimes decisions need to be taken NOW to keep you safe. All of which is rather different to October last year when the same Tom Newton Dunn “refused to co-operate with officers, even though he was himself threatened with arrest for aiding and abetting misconduct in a public office”. He rightly refused to identify his source for a story.

So the rozzers “applied for Newton Dunn’s mobile phone records in order expose his source. The Met also successfully seized call data to The Sun newsdesk in order to expose a second alleged police source”. Then, not only was snooping A Very Bad Thing, but the Sun defended itself by citing those very same “controversial human rights laws”, and relied on those same judges to call it in their favour.

How suddenly the judges become “ignorant” and the Human Rights Act “controversial” when it’s the little people getting shat on. Tom Newton Dunn - what a stinking hypocrite.


Anonymous said...

Of COURSE judges "...are too ignorant..."

Like everybody else who gets in the way of snooping old women in the "intelligence services."

According to themselves, loony paranoid spooks must have completely unaccountable access to everything everyone's doing at any time of the day and night. How else can they justify their "activities"?

Mind you, there's black humour in this. A Sun Murdoch boot-licker and hack being hacked evokes only this in me: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! It couldn't happen to a more hypocritical, two-faced, lying shitehawk.

Andy McDonald said...

Same as it ever was, all these laws are fine as long as they're used on Other People.

It never occurs to people that they could be Other People too.