Category: Human rights,

Palantir and the threats to our rights


Palantir’s increasing penetration a real concern

March 2026

During a presentation on increasing authoritarianism at the Exeter conference, the firm Palantir was mentioned and its potential, and part in, the worrying trend of authoritarianism on both sides of the Atlantic. The first question is what does the firm do? This is normally a straightforward enough question to answer by looking at the firm’s website and other sources. But in this case there seem to be doubts even from people who work there.

Essentially they handle information and data – colossal amounts of it. They are able to meld a wide range of data sets to provide answers to customers who include commercial firms, the military and a variety of government agencies. One of their senior employees chillingly said ‘we help with killing people and saving lives’. In this essay we want to explain why we should be concerned about the firm and its likely effects on our rights and freedoms. Information is power. As we are seeing in the current wars in Ukraine, the Middle East and Iran, information is crucial to the successful targeting of munitions and to military operations generally.

The firm is in the news again with a contract with the Financial Conduct Authority which gives it access to sensitive financial information. The Guardian reports (23 March) it will enable the firm to monitor case intelligence files, financial ombudsman complaints, problem firms, emails and social media posts. There are concerns from within the FCA that the firm will gain access to their methods and how trustworthy are they with that information. Will Palantir ‘tip off’ its friends they ask? The owner of Palantir, Peter Thiel frequently featured in the Epstein files.

As the quote above illustrates, information is not neutral. It can be used to analyse the masses of information held by the NHS to make improvements in clinical outcomes and in improving efficiency. It has been used to help in crime detection by matching large and disparate quantities of information on international criminal networks. But it has been used by ICE in its activities in the US which have drawn a lot of criticism. The essential point therefore is being able effectively to control the data and the companies like Palantir who have it. It is this which is the root of concerns.

Concerns

1. The first concern is that it is a profit based corporation. Its prime focus is on returns to shareholders and making a profit. There is no crime in that but when it comes to data and millions of files of information about individuals, moral issues and matters of security and confidentiality are crucially important. In common with all corporations these days, it has a series of reassuring policy statements about human rights for example. History doesn’t support these statements. When it is profit v. morals, which will win out?

2. The lack of security of the data it collects. In the case of the NHS, the government is desperate to secure savings and no doubt Palantir will offer them which could be genuine enough. The company is American based and as we have experienced with other tech giants, transparency and attention to the welfare of the people using their platforms is very low down on their list of concerns. Will the desire to save money outweigh the security of the data?

3. The government has shown itself to be inept in a wide variety of IT catastrophes and have chosen to outsource to Palantir because they have a system that works. In doing so, they will lose control to a corporation outside its jurisdiction. Like several other ‘tech bros’ its owner, Peter Thiel, has been happy enough to cosy up to President Trump. Thiel in his writings is keen on monopolies which is also a worry when we are talking about a public organisation like the NHS.

4. The organisation’s links to the military and help offered to the IDF. It developed a technology called Maven which dramatically speeds up what is termed the ‘kill chain’ and has been used in Gaza and Iran. It identifies, using AI technology, where a target is likely to be and enables rapid attacks and assassinations to take place. Palantir is not involved in the decision to allow killing of 15 or more innocent individuals by the IDF for one Hamas fighter but is nevertheless supplying the IT to enable it to take place.

No scruples

It all adds up to a fundamental concern about being associated with such a firm. It appears to have no scruples in terms of the uses put by its systems and technology. We have a government which has shown itself to be more and more authoritarian, keen to allow an American company over which it has almost no legal controls, access to a vast range of data about individuals.

It comes down to the sovereignty of the data, who owns it and what is done with it, its security and who has access legally or otherwise, and the ability of the UK government to protect our interests. Over all these there are big question marks. Defence experts have expressed deep concerns. When the New York Police Dept. cancelled its contract with Palantir, the company kept the insights it had gained. The Swiss army has cancelled its contract with them for the reasons set out here.

We should be deeply concerned by this firm’s penetration into our national life and be highly sceptical of promises by government ministers that they have adequate controls.

Become a subscriber, it’s free!

1

Threat to Jury Trials: MPs Debate New Court Bill


Threat to trial by jury

March 2026

MPs voted to allow the Courts and Tribunals Bill to proceed to the next stage after significant debate during its second reading.  This was over proposals to replace juries in England and Wales with a single judge in cases where a convicted defendant would be jailed for up to three years.  Justice Secretary David Lammy says changes to jury trials and other reforms can help turn around the Crown Court backlog, which has reached record levels of 80,000 cases. These delays mean some defendants charged today may not face trial until 2030.

However more than 3,200 lawyers including 300 top barristers and retired judges have called on the government to drop the plan to abolish some jury trials.  The letter to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, a former director of public prosecutions, says there is no evidence the “unpopular” plan will solve unprecedented delays in criminal courts.  The letter organised by the Bar Council, which represents all barristers in England and Wales, says the plan is an attempt “to force through an unpopular, untested and poorly evidenced change to our jury system”.

The bill will still have to clear the House of Lords before it can become law.  The right to jury trial – in which ordinary people decide on the guilt or innocence of defendants brought before Crown Courts – is a cornerstone of the constitution dating back more than 800 years.

Magna Carta did not specifically mention jury trials but does say ‘no free man shall be seized or imprisoned except through the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land’ (women are not mentioned). It did however plant the seed of juries and over time the idea became established in British law. The Statute of Westminster was passed in 1275 that required jury trials in certain cases, showing how these ideas from the Magna Carta were evolving into legal practice.

Recent governments have revealed a dislike of protest and have done a lot to introduce measures and restrictions making such protests more and more difficult. Police powers have been increased and thousands were arrested protesting on behalf of Palestine Action for example. Some juries have gone against judicial directions and have freed defendants. There must be a worry therefore that restricting the right to a jury trial leaves defendants at the mercy of judges alone who, some argue, can be reactionary,

1

How the New UK Bill Aims to Prevent Foreign Election Interference


New bill to tackle electoral reform

March 2026

A functioning democratic system is vital for human rights.  It is about power and how it is wielded.  Increasingly, we have witnessed powerful outside interests – whether they be states or wealthy individuals – influencing the political debate.  Electoral reform is carried out infrequently partly because political parties settle into a comfortable relationship with the status quo.  They can also be reluctant to go against the wishes of their influential patrons. 

The newly introduced Representation of the People Bill aims to keep hostile foreign states from interfering in British elections while significantly extending democratic rights to the population. As part of the biggest expansion of democratic participation in a generation it offers first the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year olds, which will give voice to millions of young people.

Second, the capping of donations from companies towards electoral expenses will be set at two years of revenue, ensuring that companies that have no genuine business activity or UK footprint will be prevented from making donations.  The Bill means companies will need to have shown sufficient revenue made over the previous 3 years (allowing in most cases two financial years of revenue) to justify their donation.  It means foreign actors will no longer be able to use their money to interfere in the UK’s elections,

MPs will not be allowed to accept gifts of money or in-kind donations over £2,230. Legitimate gifted hospitality valued below this thresh-hold will continue to be acceptable.

The many other proposals to ensure election fairness include automatic voter registration without voters needing to apply, extending legitimate Voter ID to include bank cards digital forms of ID, increasing the time available for postal voting, ensuring candidates offer documentary proof of their identity to avoid misleading voters, and addressing issues of harassment at polling stations

It marks the beginning of a process that may reshape the practical workings of the UK’s democracy. Few governments have attempted to reform our democratic system quite so comprehensively in a single legislative package.  For once, the over-used ‘once in a generation’ tag may actually be justified.

But it does little to protect democracy from misinformation and disinformation in elections, despite the government recognising the risks.  It is this ability to ‘control the narrative’ which is a big factor in our political process.

Image: Electoral Reform Society

0

Concerns about facial recognition


The use of facial recognition technology advancing with few controls

February 2026

One of the features of the Chinese state is the massive use of facial recognition technology throughout China. It is a vast system with millions of cameras and is used to monitor every movement of its citizens. The system is used to control everyone and it means no one can move or meet someone without it being observed and logged by the state. It is the ultimate example of the panopticon in a modern setting.

Some are remarkably relaxed about its use in the UK believing claims made that it will be properly controlled and will be used to catch criminals, drug dealers and the like. So innocent people have nothing to fear. Read on …

Right to Privacy

The government’s Biometric Technology Consultation (to close on 12 February) aims to help develop a new legal framework for the use of facial recognition and similar technologies by law enforcement. Despite the landmark UK Court of Appeal ruling in 2020, that found the South Wales Police use of automated facial recognition (AFR) technology was unlawful, police forces in different parts of the country have increased their use of Live Facial Recognition (LFR).  As these systems contain the biometric data of huge numbers of people, some concerns from human rights groups, including Amnesty and Liberty, are briefly summarised here.

The first concern is to ensure that a new legal framework should apply to all use of ‘biometric technologies’ by all law enforcement and other organisations and should be transparent.  Complex mathematical processing is used to identify facial features and generate ‘similarity scores’ but the internal logic of how a match is calculated is hidden from both the police operators and the public.  The authorities cannot explain the specific basis for an intervention nor account for why or if the technology produces biased or inaccurate results.

Second, it is concerning that the use of Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) is becoming widespread and easily accessible, with retail outlets taking on a quasi law enforcement role, aided and supported by the police, and drawing on the same or similar databases.  It is becoming normalised in schools, in commercial and retail settings, with information flowing between sectors and under a patchwork of inconsistent laws which the public does not understand and find almost impossible to challenge.

This was demonstrated in a recent Guardian report (6th February) on the apprehension and removal from Sainsbury’s store in Elephant and Castle of a customer who had been wrongly matched by staff with a photo of a different customer flagged by their Facewatch camera.  In order to prove his innocence he had to apply to the agency using a QR code and submit a photo and a copy of his passport to them before they declared him not on their blacklist.

 The following is a list of factors of concern to human rights groups:

– Transparency – to include how and when the technology is being used and the clarity of accessible information about rights.

– Whether biometric data is acquired overtly or covertly.

– Whether it is collected voluntarily or involuntarily. Pervasive monitoring is leading to the normalisation of suspicion less surveillance.

-The subject’s status – whether or not someone is the intended subject of a police investigation or an innocent bystander walking past a camera.

– Who has access to the data and the results.

– The space, context and location of deployment. Expectations of privacy vary significantly between a quiet park and a busy thoroughfare.

– Whether the system is used to make inferences about a person’s internal state, their emotion or intent.

– Whether the interference is demonstrably ‘necessary’ and ‘proportionate’ to a legitimate aim, such as the prevention of serious crime.

– Whether assessments consider the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) to ensure the technology does not have a discriminatory impact.

– Algorithm bias: whether this performs differently based on race, gender, or age, which could lead to the over-policing of marginalised communities.

– Watchlist bias: whether scrutiny of criteria can ensure groups are not disproportionately targeted based on protected characteristics.

– Bias in interpretation of identification patterns claiming to provide predictive evidence.

Human Rights groups say that any new regulation should protect privacy and limit data-sharing between public authorities, law enforcement and private companies; and that as the state gains powerful new ways to monitor citizens, a strong and resilient oversight body with true independence is needed to protect human rights and dignity.

0

Human Rights Concerns in UK Protest Laws


Concerns about latest bill and affects on right to protest

January 2026

Liberty and other human rights organisations argue that proposals in this bill, currently going through the Lords, will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

Repeat Protests 

Clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would give police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area. If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues. They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on its size. This means there could be borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before. This won’t just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Since change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament (votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend) this clause is viewed as inhibiting persistent lawful protest.

Face coverings at protests

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings. Police already have the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Protests outside places of worship 

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship. Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This very low threshold could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Regular demonstrations outside Parliament could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

Other amendments 382 A-D would make it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and remove the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest.

CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS

The British Egyptian activist Alaa Abd el-Fattah will not be stripped of his citizenship as, according to the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmoud. His ‘abhorrent’ social media posts of a decade ago do not meet the legal bar for revocation. The necessary criteria would include fraudulent acquiring of citizenship or terrorism charges or links with serious organised crime.

The British government helped secure the activist’s release from years in an Egyptian jail but after his arrival in London from Egypt on Boxing Day, opposition parties called for him to be deported and his citizenship revoked, citing tweets in which he called for Zionists to be killed. El-Fattah who was granted British citizenship while in prison in 2021 through his mother’s birth in the UK, has apologised for past social media posts.

Government sources said the bar on removing citizenship was set high to provide the necessary safeguards. There is a right of appeal against the decision to revoke citizenship. Shamima Begum’s appeal was rejected by the former home secretary Sajid Javid in 2019.

PROTESTS ON BEHALF OF HUNGER STRIKERS

A 500-strong protest was held outside Pentonville prison to express urgent concern at the government’s continued inaction in the face of the imminent death of three remaining hunger strikers of the so-called Filton 24. They have now been on strike for over 45, 59 and 66 days respectively (8 January). 800 medical personnel have signed a letter criticising the government’s handling of the hunger strikers.

Campaigners have called their treatment ‘punishment by process’ since none has yet been charged with a terrorist offence, only with burglary, criminal damage and violent disorder, relating to their entry into a factory run by Elbit Systems, the Israeli arms manufacturer.

While the CPS sets a maximum of six months on remand, the hunger strikers have already been imprisoned without trial since November 2024. Their actions took place before the banning of their pro-Gaza protest group, Palestine Action, a banning which is currently being investigated after an appeal supported by Liberty and Amnesty.

Previous posts:

On 21st January, we are hosting a talk by the author and journalist Peter Oborne about his new book ‘Complicit’. For details see the post about Britain’s role above. It is free with a parting collection.

0

Review of 2025


… and things do not look much better for 2026

December 2025

We have published 192 posts so far this year on a wide variety of subjects concerned with human rights. A key feature of the year has been the continuation of our vigils. We have held over 109 since the current conflict started and although there is some kind of cessation of hostilities, peaceful reconciliation between Israel and the Palestinians seems a far away dream. Some food aid is getting in but Israel has seized almost all the cultivable land leaving those in Gaza hemmed into an even smaller part of their territory. We have commented on the poor reporting of events there and the unsatisfactory nature of so many interviews.

Arms sales

A feature of this conflict and other conflicts around the world is the role of the arms trade. It appears that this trade seems to determine British policy: truly the tail wagging the dog. The government frequently trots out that it has a ‘robust policy’ whilst granting licences – and in particular open licenses – to almost all who come. The effects on people at the receiving end of these weapons sales does not seem to worry the Foreign Office or government ministers. Recent government’s policies have focused on growth and if growth means selling arms to Israel and to the UAE so be it. There is considerable evidence that the latter are supplying the RSF in Sudan who are alleged to commit many atrocities.

At the height of the Yemen war we highlighted the role of British arms firms and their weapons sales to the Saudis. RAF personnel were involved just short of being labelled ‘mercenaries’.

Sport

Sport has featured in several of our posts and the ever increasing use by states with abysmal human rights records to use sport to burnish their images. Virtually all sports are involved, but especially football, boxing, motor sport, golf, tennis and cycling. The driver is money. China and the Gulf states are among those with almost unlimited resources to pour into sporting events with seemingly no difficulty in attracting sportsmen and women to compete in their countries with no moral qualms. They also invest in our football clubs again with no concerns about how tainted the money is.

It has become so part of the furniture now that it engenders little comment. Whereas some years ago a nation which executes significant numbers of its citizens – often after confessions extracted under torture – which imprisons or ‘disappears’ human rights defenders and journalists and treats its women as second class citizens denying them many rights, would raise eyebrows when seeking to sponsor or host a sporting event. Not today.

Refugees

And it is not just sport where issues of human rights have seemed to take a back seat. People entering this country by various means have generated a massive amount of political controversy here in the UK. It is probably true to say that immigration in one form or another is one of the dominant political forces at work. It is deciding elections. A number of politicians are using the ‘crisis’ to their political advantage (they hope). Egged on by sections of our media, they have created the impression that there is a crisis particularly around the numbers arriving in small boats across the Channel. Any concern for those in the boats and why they are risking their lives to get here does not seem to feature. The impression is sometimes created that if we could deport the migrants (however defined) our problems would be over. The connection between our arms sales and the instability of the countries they have fled from does not seem to enter their thinking.

The contribution by immigrants (again however defined) is scarcely recognised. That large sections of our economy (horticulture and the food industry for example), the health service, hospitality and transport, would cease to function without them seldom seems to enter the consciousness of our senior politicians. We have commented on the strange fact that many of our senior politicians, including Rishi Sunak, Suella Braverman, Priti Patel, Shabana Mahmood, Kwasi Kwarteng and Danny Kruger are all descended from recent immigrants but are among the most aggressive about deporting those coming after them. We can offer no explanation.

Rights at home

Which brings us to another theme concerning the government and its own attachment to UK human rights. It was once hoped that the arrival of Sir Keir Starmer – an ex human rights lawyer and past Director of Public Prosecutions – would see an improvement in the human rights climate. Sadly, it has not come to pass. Laws against protests introduced by the Conservatives to clamp down on protestors, have not been modified or repealed and have even been added to. A more humane policy towards immigrants and refugees has not happened. Arrests have continued and as this is being written, those arrested on pro-Palestine marches are close to death on hunger strike. His continuing support for Israel has been shaming. He has issued critical comments but they have not been backed up by action, cutting arms supplies for example. No believable explanation for the hundreds of RAF flights over Gaza has been forthcoming. His most disgraceful comment that ‘Israel was right to withhold power and water from Gaza’ was widely condemned.

This year we have introduced a new regular feature reviewing the human right situation in the UK itself. This is probably something we would never have contemplated doing say, twenty years ago but a combination of poor leadership, aggressive home secretaries and many MPs with little interest in protecting human rights, has led to this move. Both Danny Kruger (MP for East Wiltshire) and John Glen (MP for Salisbury) are listed on They Work For You as generally voting against human rights is another factor. Mr Glen, who is listed as a member of the well-funded lobby group Conservative Friends of Israel has never once visited the Saturday peace vigil nor mentioned it in his weekly column in the Salisbury Journal.

Ukraine, Sudan, China, Palestine …

The world situation does not seem to get any better. The situation in Ukraine is critical and not just for the Ukrainians. We have one member of the Security Council, Russia gratuitously attacking an independent nation while another member, the US seems indifferent to their plight. The warm greeting by President Trump of President Putin on the tarmac in Alaska must be one of the more grizzly images of the past year. European nations have become almost powerless, in part because of their collective failure to invest in defence (defense) but also because they have become kind of vassal states to the US.

We must not forget that human rights in Russia are poor. There is no opposition and a leader who was a threat to Putin, Navalny, was probably murdered in Siberia. Others have been arrested or murdered along with many journalists. Children have been abducted from Ukraine. Ukrainian prisoners have been tortured.

We could devote a whole page to China. A million Uyghurs are persecuted and are forced to work while their culture is systematically destroyed by the Communist Party. Some call it genocide. Tibet has had a similar treatment and its culture largely eliminated. They are believed to execute more of its citizens than all the rest of the world combined. Freedom has been snuffed out in Hong Kong. Chinese nationals are intimidated overseas.

The future

The future is unpromising. The ‘New World Order’ created after the war is well and truly dead. Powerful interests act at will. Despotic leaders act in their own interests not in the interests of ordinary people. Europe is too feeble to act. It looks as though things will continue as they are. There is no hint that the current conflicts will end equitably but based on the whims of a handful of profoundly flawed men.

A large number of MPs of all parties are members of the Friends of Israel group and many also receive money from them. How can they be expected to act honestly, with integrity and in the best interests of the country (to be clear, the UK whose residents voted them in not a foreign state) if they are members of a powerful and well funded lobby group? Arms companies continue to sell their wares with few controls so desperate is the government for growth. The BBC has been cowed into silence on important topics.

In June of last year, the Institute for Government, recognising the serious loss of trust in the government, published its 7 steps to restore trust. One was the publication of an independent ministerial code. Another was to ensure lobbying was built on a clear coherent and transparent system. It has not happened. There is no rigorous or proper system of controlling the ‘revolving door’ which is a passport for corruption by ministers, ex-civil servants and military people retiring into lucrative appointments with arms companies.

Hope

The weekly vigils and the many hundreds of protests around the country for an end to the killing and genocide in Gaza is a heartening sign. It shows a significant number of people who care about what is happening, care that is not reflected by the government nor by chunks of the media. Despite their numbers, reporting is thin with a media all too keen gleefully to report flag waving disturbances outside hotels or army camps. If hope is to be found it lies with ordinary people who simply say ‘this isn’t right, this is not what I believe in’. Rutger Bregman in his Reith Lectures (2025) argues just this: that small committed groups can make a difference. However, whether they can achieve this at the international level is debatable. We can cite climate which will be having harmful effects on more and more of the world’s population and where progress if anything is going backwards.

We shall continue to campaign and we always welcome new members to the team.

Best wishes for the New Year to our small band of readers!

0

UK Human Rights Report: Current Threats and Government Actions


Monthly report on human rights in the UK

December 2025

Amnesty has for many years, focused its efforts on human rights issues overseas. Recent actions by governments of both persuasions have meant a greater focus on the threats to rights here in the UK. Only this very week, the prime minister and other ministers are in Europe trying to seek agreement to a ‘modernisation’ of the ECHR arguing it is necessary to tackle the immigration ‘crisis’. In this post, we review aspects of our rights which are current or under threat.

Freedom of Expression

The outcome of November’s High Court hearing of the legal challenge mounted by Liberty and Amnesty to the ban on Palestine Action is still pending.  Amnesty’s Director of Communications claims that ‘the Government’s ban is a disproportionate misuse of the UK’s terrorism powers and breaches articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights – which protect freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association.

“We have seen the chilling consequences of this decision across the country – with thousands of arrests in recent months.  These mass arrests, and the silencing that organisations and individuals have felt, is a clear and frightening example of how the UK is misusing overly-broad terrorism laws to suppress free speech. Terrorism powers have never been used against what was previously direct-action protest and if this precedent is allowed to stand, it opens up a bleak future for protest rights in the UK.” 

Amnesty is seriously concerned at reports of the worsening condition of members of the Filton 24 who are on hunger strike after the damage to two aircraft at Brize Norton last year as protest against the Israeli Elbit Systems’ involvement in Gaza. None of the prisoners have been charged under the Terrorism Act but prosecutors have said both offences had a “terrorism connection”.  Amnesty has consistently opposed the use of anti-terrorism powers in these cases claiming they have been used to justify excessively lengthy pre-trial detention and draconian prison conditions.   

Arrest of Britons overseas

Amnesty International is urging the UK Government to develop a clear and consistent approach to the unjust imprisonment of British people overseas, including a new strategy that should include as a minimum:

  • the Government calling for an arbitrarily-detained person’s immediate release (including publicity where requested by the family)
  • pressing for access to a lawyer, a fair trial and medical care where relevant
  • demanding consular access insisting that UK officials be able to attend trials
  • regularly meeting with family members to outline the Government’s overall approach in the case.

The UK Government’s failures on this issue, highlighted in a recent BBC drama and documentary on the case of Nazanin Zaghari Ratcliffe, continue today.  British nationals, including Ahmed al-Doush, are not receiving the level of diplomatic support required to secure their release.  Ahmed was arrested while on a family holiday in Saudi Arabia in 2024 for social media posts.  The Manchester-based father of four was convicted under terrorism legislation and sentenced to 10 years in prison, later reduced to eight.

The UK Government has failed to advocate for Ahmed, not taking a position on his case, despite being provided by information indicating that his detention is a freedom of expression case.  Amnesty International continue to campaign so that Ahmed can be reunited with his family and urges the UK Government to advocate for his release if he is being held solely for exercising his right to freedom of expression.

Use of Facial Recognition by police

A Government consultation into police use of facial recognition is set to launch imminently.

Liberty has been calling on the Government to follow the example of other countries which have introduced laws around police use of facial recognition technology – and has urged Ministers and police forces to stop expanding its use until those laws are in place.  Alarm has been raised at the finding that faces of children are included on the records of some police forces.

Liberty wants the inclusion of the following safeguards:

  • The independent sign off before facial recognition is used
  • Police to only use facial recognition technology to search for missing persons or victims of abduction, human trafficking and sexual exploitation; to prevent an imminent threat to life or people’s safety; to search for people suspected of committing a serious criminal offence;
  • Watchlists to contain only images strictly relevant to the purposes above;
  • However, Amnesty International wants a global ban on this technology on the grounds that it violates the human right to privacy, it inaccurately targets minorities, especially people of colour and women; it intimidates people from free expression of views;
  • It cites racist bias in examples of the use of mass surveillance technology by US policing of black communities, and also Israeli policing of Palestinians.

Change declared to European Convention on Human Rights

After the UK recently joined Denmark and Italy in pressing for a rethink of aspects of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), especially in relation to migration law, the Council have now taken the first steps to reshape how European courts interpret human rights.  Amid fierce debate over the balance between ECHR and national migration controls, ministers made a joint declaration which will now task 46 foreign ministers with drafting a political declaration to be adopted at the next meeting in May 2026.

The Council oversees the ECHR while its court enforces those rights across 46 member states including all 27 EC countries.  Greater national flexibility is demanded in response to human smuggling, border security and the expulsion of offenders.

Sir Keir Starmer and other heads of state have restated that, while wishing to see some ‘modernisation’ of the Convention, there is no intention of abolishing it.  The move is seen as a response to protest from far-right groups across Europe and ‘uncontrolled’ immigration and the perception that the right to family life inhibits states from deporting convicted foreign criminals.

Human rights groups are raising concerns at the dilution of the original Declaration of Human Rights as non-negotiable, universal and inclusive of all minorities. 

0

Write for Rights


Cathedral signing this Sunday

November 2025

The group will be hosting a signing in the Cathedral cloister on Sunday 30 between 12 noon and 3 pm. We aim to do this every year and it is an opportunity for people visiting the Cathedral – for a service or other reason – to stop for a few moments to sign. There are many, many people who are imprisoned or under house arrest for their beliefs or because they are human rights defenders.

0

November 2025 Human Rights Newsletter Highlights


November 2025

We are pleased to attach the minutes and newsletter for November thanks to group member Lesley for compiling them. They contain reports from other group members and are of general interest to followers of human rights issues. There is a report on immigration for example a topic which continues to make political waves in the UK. It makes the point that whereas the main focus of political ire and furious editorials and commentary is the number of arrivals on boats, the actual number is relatively tiny in proportion to the total number of immigrants.

There is also a report on human rights issues in the UK a matter of increasing concern. Both the Conservative and Labour governments do not like protests and have – or are planning to – introduce more and more legislation to hamper, ban or severely restrict protests and demonstrations.

There is a list of forthcoming activities which would provide an opportunity for anyone interested in joining to make themselves known.

November minutes (Word)Download

Recent posts:

Other Amnesty groups are free to use content.

0

The Chilling Impact of UK Policing on Civil Liberties


Update on current issues in the UK

September 2025

Much of our coverage of human rights issues on this site features overseas countries and indeed there is a lot to write about. The latest edition of the Amnesty magazine (Autumn 2025, Issue 226) has a feature on the rise and arguably increasing number of authoritarian leaders for whom human rights are things to be suppressed by all means possible. The list includes Javier Milei of Argentina; Narendra Modi with his draconian anti-terrorism law used to target activists, journalists, students, protesters and others.

Vladimir Putin needs no introduction nor does Xi Jinping who enacts repressive laws, persecutes Uyghurs and the repression of Tibetan culture continue unabated. Others include Mohammed bin Salman in Saudi who is busy wooing anyone who’ll listen while engaged in suppression of any dissent and who has executed record numbers in 2024. Victor Orban who has increasingly targeted civil society while remaining a member of the EU. Netanyahu in Israel is well known and presiding over genocide in Gaza and intensifying violence and apartheid in the West Bank. He bans foreign journalists and the UN from entering Gaza.

‘Chilling effect’

But there are worries in the UK with more and more laws being passed to inhibit protests and empower the police to arrest or interdict such protests and those attending them. Palestine Action has been much in the news and the organisation was declared a terrorist group by the previous Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper. A high court judge has ruled that the co-founder of PA can bring an unprecedented legal challenge to the Home Secretary’s decision. Mr Justice Chamberlain said the proscription order against the group risked ‘considerable harm to the public interest’ because of the ‘chilling effect’ on legitimate political speech.

At the recent rally on 6th September in London organised by Defend our Juries, police arrested nearly 900 people many of whom were carrying Palestine Action placards. A 3 day hearing starts in November and it will be the first time an appeal is allowed against a ‘terrorist’ organisation. The court has given permission for both Amnesty and Liberty to intervene in the hearing.

Human Rights Watch: World Report

HRW’s World Report amplifies the above comments in its section on the UK. Laws criminalising protest undermine democratic rights they note. They remain on the statute book and the Labour government shows no sign of repealing them. The 2023 Public Order Act, the 2020 Police Crime Sentencing and Courts Act also remain on the statute book both of which increased police powers and act to limit free speech.

There are comments about the increasing disparity in wealth in the UK. On immigration and asylum it notes the failure to provide safe routes and how politicians and some media outlets have contributed to a hostile environment towards ethnic and racial minorities.

Policing

Since 2002, the police have had an increasing presence in schools under the Safer Schools Partnership programme. Liberty has found no evidence that this police presence has made them safer and that there is no reliable evidence that such presence reduces crime or violence. One problem is that police are mandated to report crime in schools even it may be inappropriate in the circumstances. Lack of funding for mental health leads police to step into roles unrelated to policing it notes One of their recommendations is that police a more supportive roles in PSHE activities. See the report for more details.

It cannot be argued that the UK is anywhere near the situation in some of the countries briefly mentioned above. Journalists are not murdered as in Russia, opposition politicians are not imprisoned for no reason which happens in Saudi, there are no second class citizens as in Israel. However, the slow drip of legislation and increasing police powers, widening use of facial recognition even in peaceful protests, a legal system largely the preserve of the very rich and elements of our media all too happy to laud clampdowns and arrests of those they don’t like are matters of increasing concern. We shall continue to highlight these issues in our posts.

Previous posts:

Why not become a subscriber?

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑