Category: Human rights,

Perils of predictive policing


Amnesty publishes a report warning of the perils of predictive policing

February 2025

Many TV detective series have technology at their core as our heroes vigorously pursue the wrongdoers. CCTV cameras are scrutinised for movements of the criminals, DNA evidence is obtained and of course fingerprints are taken. The story lines of countless detective series feature forensic evidence as a key component of police detection. The series and stories are reassuring by displaying law enforcement officers using all the techniques – scientific and technological – to keep us all safe and lock up the bad guys. Using science and algorithms to enable police forces to predict crime must be a good idea surely?

It is not. The Amnesty report, and other research, explain in great detail the problems and what the risks are. One of the persistent biases in the justice system is racism and it would be worth reading the book The Science of Racism by Keon West (Picador, pub. 2025). The author takes the reader through copious peer reviewed research conducted over many years in different countries explaining the extent of racism. Examples include many cv studies (US: resume) where identical cv’s, but with different names which indicate the ethnicity of candidates, produces markedly different results. There are similar examples from the world of medicine and academia. Racism is endemic and persists. As Keon West acknowledges, a similar book could be written about how women are treated differently.

The Amnesty report notes that Black people are twice as likely to be arrested; three times as likely to be subject to force and 4 times as likely to be subject to stop and search as white people. With such bias in place, the risk is that predictive policing might simply perpetuate existing prejudice and bias. The concern partly centres around the use of skin colour, where people live and their socio-economic background all used as predictive tools.

People have a deep faith in technology. On a recent Any Answers? programme (on BBC Radio 4), a debate about the death penalty and the problem of mistakes, several people showed a touching faith in DNA in particular inferring that mistakes cannot happen. People are mesmerised by the white suited forensic officers on television giving a sense of science and certainly. Technology is only as good as the human systems which use it however. There have been many wrongful arrests and prison sentences of innocent people despite DNA, fingerprints, CCTV and all the rest. Mistakes are made. The worry is that predictive policing could enhance discrimination.

People who are profiled have no way of knowing that they have been. There is a need to publish details of what systems the police and others are using. The police are reluctant to do this the report notes. What is the legal basis for effectively labelling people because of their skin colour, where they live and their socio-economic status?

The police are keen on the idea and around 45 forces use it. The evidence for its effectiveness is doubtful. The risks are considerable.

1

Salisbury Journal piece


Journal acknowledges Vigils held in Salisbury

January 2025

The Salisbury Journal published a short piece describing the Vigils we have been holding each week in this week’s edition (30 January 2025). It said:

“A silent vigil took place outside the library to express a hope for the of violence in the Middle East. On Saturday the 60th silent vigil took place outside Salisbury Library with around 50 people attending. The weekly vigils are an expression of hope for an end to violence and a peaceful future in the Middle East and in the most recent [event] people carried flowers and candles and displayed heartfelt messages.

The messages emphasised the message for a permanent ceasefire. A spokesperson from vigil said “we call on the UK government to take immediate action to ensure accountability and justice for Palestinians. All arms sales to Israel muse be suspended. This is a moment of truth for the UK. To continue shielding Israel from accountability is to abandon the principles of justice and human rights that the UK claims to uphold.”

These vigils are supported by local groups of Amnesty International, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Christian Aid, Quakers, Sarum Concern for Israel Palestine and many others.”

The vigils will continue and the next is this Saturday 1st February at 5pm as usual for half an hour. All welcome.

Also in the Journal, the local MP Mr Glen, spoke of his presence at the Holocaust memorial which took place in the city. He has not acknowledged in his weekly columns any of the 60 vigils so far held.

0

Human Rights Watch critical of UK


HRW’s World Report for 2024 critical of the UK on several fronts

January 2025

It comes as a shock when a respected international human rights organisation produces a report containing a number of criticisms of the UK government over its human rights record. There are some in this country who think that our role in developing the Universal Declaration in 1948 and incorporating that into the Human Rights Act fifty years later, somehow gives us some kind of moral status as champions of rights. HRW’s report disabuses us of that. The UK is a cause for concern on several fronts it says.

There are others who think the opposite and consider the act to have gone too far, enabling murderers, rapists and terrorists not getting their just deserts presenting spurious arguments based on the act. The Conservative government has in its various manifestos promised to abolish it and more recently has suggested it wants a bill of rights to replace the act. There has been a concerted press and media campaign over many years arguing for it to be abolished and which has, arguably, engendered in many people that the idea that the legislation is somehow against them. The positive benefits of the legislation are seldom mentioned.

There are still many who want the UK to come out of the European Convention including the MP for East Wiltshire, Danny Kruger.

The World Report discusses several areas of concern where it considers the UK to be falling short on human rights issues.

Poverty

Poverty means people are less able to live fulfilling lives, have poorer health outcomes, and often cannot afford to heat their homes adequately. The UK has the one of the highest levels of income inequality in Europe. It notes that the Labour government has not abolished the two-child limit a factor driving up child poverty. There is a cost of living crisis. It often means people cannot pursue their rights in the courts, not only because the system is hideously expensive and legal aid has all but vanished, but because of years of delay before a case can be heard.

It notes that 7 years have passed since the Grenfell Tower fire yet no one has been brought to justice. It might also have noted that years have gone by following the publicity concerning grooming gangs – more accurately called rape gangs – with little sign of serious action and no one brought to account. And there is the Post Office scandal and what has happened in the Anglican church and the resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury. There has been a spate of hospital scandals.

Curtailment of freedoms

Several laws introduced to curtail freedoms. They point to the 2023 Public Order Act and the 2022 Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act which have increased police powers of arrest. They express concern about increasing surveillance including of peaceful protests. Facial recognition is being introduced apace amounting to mass surveillance of the populace. We are more like China than perhaps we like to think. They draw attention to the UN rapporteur’s concerns about clampdown on environmental protests.

There are other matters of concern in the UK and these can be seen in the full report starting on page 505. The past year has once again highlighted an often-disregarded reality: liberal democracies are not always reliable champions of human rights at home or abroad.

They discuss the role of the United States in connection to Gaza and note that “US President Joe Biden’s foreign policy has demonstrated a double standard when it comes to human rights, providing arms without restriction to Israel despite its widespread atrocities in Gaza, while condemning Russia for similar violations in Ukraine, and failing to address serious rights abuses by partners like the United Arab Emirates, India, and Kenya. Donald Trump’s return to the White House not only threatens rights within the US but will also affect, by commission and omission, respect for human rights abroad. If the first Trump administration’s attacks on multilateral institutions, international law, and the rights of marginalized groups are any indication, his second term could inflict even greater human rights damage, including by emboldening illiberal leaders worldwide to follow suit.”

This is probably the key message of the report as a whole. The promise of the Universal Declaration and the hope of ‘never again’ seems to be dead in the water. If countries like the US and the UK cannot give a lead, acting honourably and taking full account of human rights both at home and in their foreign policies, there is slender hope that countries led by a variety of despots will take any heed. As we noted in our last post on arms sales, the selling of arms to whomsoever causing death and terrible harm to millions seems to matter over any kind of moral consideration. The HRW report is a sober read.

0

Review of the year


Review of the year by Each Other

December 2024

A useful review of the year as far as human rights in the UK is concerned has just been produced by Each Other. They point to a number of human rights concerns in the UK. One issue were the calls for the country to leave the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). A leading proponent of this was the East Wiltshire MP Danny Kruger. According to Politics he says the ‘Conservatives will not get back into power unless they make a commitment to leave the Convention’. The anger felt by Kruger and some of his colleagues concerns the issue of immigration and how we deal with people arriving here.

Immigration has indeed been one of the hot political topics during the year and was a key feature during the July election. There was a long drawn out proposal to send people to Rwanda and the first flight with the first of the deportees was due to leave from nearby Boscombe Down airfield. At the last moment, the European Court stepped in. It said more time should be allowed to consider the issue. It was this intervention which angered so many in the then government. Rwanda was abandoned by the Labour government.

Another important development during the year was the effects of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 which increased police powers to prevent or limit protests. We have the right to free speech and to assembly. Protests frequently anger governments of all stripes and it does not seem the Labour government is in any rush to repeal the act. The act has a deadening effect on protests – at least that was its intention. Protests have taken place with climate and the Palestine issue chief among them.

The Online Safety Bill is another contentious issue. It pits the right to free expression against guarding against hate speech. The murder of three little girls in Southport brought the issue to a head. Social media accounts alleged the alleged murderer was a Muslim and had arrived by boat. He is neither. It sparked widespread rioting and attacks on police and asylum hotels.

However, although most of the opprobrium was directed at social media, legacy media have maintained a prolonged campaign against immigrants, the boat people and Muslims. The Media Diversity Institute provides a number of examples and others are not difficult to find. They laid a groundwork for demonising ‘others’ and the response to the murders in Southport was arguably a result. Blame focused almost entirely on the rioters (correctly) and social media. The role of print media largely escaped censure.

Democracy and human rights are under threat in the UK. Elon Musk’s alleged major investment in a party in the UK will distort our politics if it happens. Musk is strongly against trade unions, for example. He has turned his X platform into a mouthpiece of far-right views. He regards the UK as a ‘tyrannical police state’. The point is not the expression of his views, which are shared by many, but that he has enormous wealth to put them into action.

Seasons greetings to our readers.

0

Illegal police surveillance of journalists


Tribunal finds that police illegally spied on journalists

December 2024

Viewers of news programmes last evening (17 December) will have noticed journalists and David Davies MP standing outside the Royal Courts of Justice holding Amnesty signs saying ‘Journalism is not a Crime’. This was as a result of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal ruling that both the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Metropolitan Police had acted unlawfully by spying on journalists during the Troubles*.

Journalism is an important part of our society and is sometimes the only means we have of getting some glimpse of the truth. Police actions in spying on journalists is to be deprecated. Two journalists, Trevor Birney and Barry McCaffrey produced a film called No Stone Unturned which documented the alleged collusion between the Police and the suspected murderers in the massacre which took place in Loughinisland in 1994. Six Catholic men were shot dead in the UVF attack, which was later found to involve collusion. In making enquiries to the PSNI this set off the surveillance operation in a bid to find the sources the journalists had relied on. It seemed relatively easy for the police at the time to acquire these orders.

‘Landmark case for press freedom‘ – Amnesty

Responding to a judgment from the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) which today ruled that the police acted unlawfully and breached the human rights of Northern Ireland journalists, Amnesty declared it a ‘landmark case for press freedom’.

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which is the only British court with statutory powers to investigate secret police surveillance, ruled that the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) and the Metropolitan Police Service unlawfully spied on the journalists in a bid to uncover their sources.

At the conclusion of a five-year investigation, the Tribunal found that the PSNI had repeatedly acted unlawfully, in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. The unlawful behaviour reached all the way to the top of the PSNI with the then Chief Constable Sir George Hamilton being found by the Tribunal to have acted unlawfully by failing to “consider whether there was an overriding public interest justifying an interference with the integrity of a journalistic source” when he authorised a spying operation against an official at the Office of the Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland.

There are increasing concerns about police and security service surveillance, which is becoming easier with new technology. Software can be placed on phones to intercept messages, whether the phone is switched on or not.

Sources: Amnesty International; Irish Times; Irish News; The Guardian

*The ‘Troubles’ were an ethno-nationalist conflict in Northern Ireland that lasted for about 30 years from the late 1960s to 1998. Also known internationally as the Northern Ireland conflict, it began in the late 1960s and is usually deemed to have ended with the Good Friday Agreement of 1998. Although the Troubles mostly took place in Northern Ireland, at times violence spilled over into parts of the Republic of Ireland, England, and mainland Europe. (Wikipedia)

Recent posts:

0

Group minutes


Minutes of the December meeting

December 2024

We have pleasure in attaching the minutes of our December meeting thanks to group member Lesley for preparing them. They contain details of the group’s recent activities including a schools talk, carol singing and Write for Rights. Future activities are also listed and if you are thinking of joining us, coming along to one of those would be a good place to start. Seasons greetings to our readers!

December minutes (Word)Download

Recent posts:

Correction: school visits date should be 21st January not 23rd as shown.

0

Arms sales and the revolving door


New report from the Campaign Against the Arms Trade reveals extent of this activity

November 2024

[ADDED: 16 December] If you want to see ministers squirm in front of a select committee when discussing arms sales to Israel (via USA) watch this YouTube video. Usual claims of ignorance and unable to answer basic questions. Even though the RAF is regularly flying over Gaza, it seems they are unaware of the destruction as the purpose they say is to look for hostages.

The question of arms sales has risen up the political agenda partly because of the question of whether we should continue to sell weapons to Israel. It also cropped up with the decision recently to award a GCVO to the King of Bahrain presented by King Charles. It was also an issue during the war in Yemen where British weapons and personnel were involved in helping Saudi in their ferocious bombing campaign in that country. All these and other examples revealed an industry with considerable political influence. They result in a distortion of our political process and an almost complete disregard for the effects of the arms on people at the end of them. The destruction being carried on in Gaza is facilitated by the continuing sale of F-35 aircraft elements of which are made in the UK. An ‘ethical dimension’ to our policy seems to be a thing of the past. There is little sign that arms sales are restricted to states which ignore human rights or International Humanitarian Law.

Not so much a revolving door as an ‘open plan office’

Campaign Against the Arms Trade CAAT has campaigned on these issues for many years and their current magazine, Issue 270, Autumn 2024 contains a number of articles on the topic of arms. One concerns what has been known as the ‘revolving door’. In an article ‘Government and Arms Industry Joined at the Hip’, they explore the deeply compromising nature of this relationship. They have published a report From Revolving Door to Open Plan Office: the Ever Closer Union Between the UK Government and the Arms Industry. They argue that the arms industry has become so deeply embedded in the government that the boundary has almost disappeared. It is now not so much a revolving door as an ‘open plan office’. 40% of top military staff and civilian personnel leaving the MOD hold positions in the arms and security industries. Transparency International research shows that one company, BAE, had more meetings with ministers and with Prime Ministers than any other company.

Private Eye carried out an extensive survey in 2016. This went into great detail and named names.

Why does it matter?

It matters for three main reasons:

  • Firstly, arms cause great misery for millions of people. The harrowing images on news programmes of property destruction, dead bodies, lines of people on the move or rows of tents housing displaced people are the result of the activities of this trade,
  • The lobbying power is such that government ministers seem to fall into line almost as soon as they assume power. Grand statements by Sir Keir Starmer and David Lammy for example are quickly forgotten as the next trade deal is signed. The arms trade seems to wield enormous power and influence over government policy,
  • Thirdly, the ‘open plan office’ means senior staff in the Civil Service and in the MOD and armed services are keeping an eye on prospects as they approach retirement. Lucrative board appointments and ‘consultancy’ contracts await them. Are they going to ask uncomfortable questions or raise difficulties with an arms contract and jeopardise these prospects?

As CAAT put it:

‘When these ‘revolvers’ leave public service for the arms trade, they take with them extensive contacts and privileged access. As current government decision-makers are willing to meet and listen to former Defence Ministers and ex-Generals, particularly if they used to work with them, this increases the arms trade’s already excessive influence over our government’s actions.

‘On top of this, there is the risk that government decision-makers will be reluctant to displease arms companies as this could ruin their chances of landing a lucrative arms industry job in the future. Beyond individual decisions, the traffic from government to the private sector, and vice versa, is part of a process where the public interest becoming conflated with corporate interest, so that it becomes normal to unquestioningly meet, collaborate and decide policy with the arms industry, then take work with it.’

0

Anniversary supper


November 2024

Some members of the Amnesty group met last evening to celebrate the 50th anniversary of its foundation. We are, sad to say, the last surviving group in Wiltshire. As we have noted before, the founders in 1974 may have thought that human rights were now a part of the political agenda and that it might naturally wither on the vine especially when the Human Rights Act became law in the UK. That has not been the case and the need for vigilance is ever present.

The world situation is dire for millions in countries like Burma where the minorities such as the Rohingya are persecuted; China where the Uyghurs and Tibetans suffer monstrous persecution; sub Saharan Africa where wars rage and millions flee or are driven from their homes; Syria – although quiet at present – has been a country where large numbers have been killed or driven from their homes and currently, the Middle East where a fearsome death toll and suggestions of ethnic cleansing are taking place in Gaza.

In the UK, hostility to the HRA is ever present and was a fixture of Conservative party policy for some years. Only yesterday we reported on a Daily Mail article which gave its readers only partial details of a report critical of the HRA produced by a secretive think tank. Several of the tabloids and the right wing press generally have maintained a steady stream of anti human rights stories suggesting the act is a get out of gaol card for criminals, terrorists and assorted ne’er-do-wells.

The They Work for You website reveals that both local MPs – John Glen and Danny Kruger – generally vote against human rights proposals. Kruger has written often on this subject and we have reviewed some of his activities on this site. The last Conservative government passed several pieces of legislation to limit protests and giving more powers to the police to arrest people taking part in protests. Indeed, the issue of arrests of journalists was part of the last Salisbury Democracy Café debate on Saturday 9th.

Both internationally and in the UK, the continuing need for a spotlight on human rights issues is vital and the group hopes to carry on with this work in the years to come. We always welcome new members and the best thing is to follow this site or Facebook (salisburyai) to see what we are doing and come along and make yourself known. Oh, and we had a very enjoyable meal!

Pic: Jane Miller

0

Report critical of human rights


Report published by Policy Exchange claiming the HRA has curtailed the rights of Parliament

November 2024

Slightly amended 13 November

An article appeared in the Daily Mail on 11 November under the headline ‘Rights Act ‘curtailed power of Parliament ”. It said ’eminent lawyers have compiled a dossier of 25 cases where the Human Rights Act was applied and have shown how its use removed power from Parliament’. It continued that ‘power once held in Westminster is increasingly being transferred to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg’ and quotes the example of the government’s wish to deport ‘illegal’ immigrants to Rwanda which was frustrated at the last minute by the Court.

The Mail did not tell its readers however, who produced this report and a reference does not appear in the online version either. It was in fact written by the Policy Exchange and published on 11th. The organisation promotes itself ‘as an educational charity [and] our mission is to develop and promote new policy ideas which deliver better public services, a stronger society and a more dynamic economy‘.

The problem is that the Exchange is an opaque organisation and does not reveal who funds it, does not reveal funding on its website nor tells us the amounts given by funders. Open Democracy is very critical about the secretiveness of this organisation, its ‘dark money’ and its influence in government both with the Conservatives and now, it alleges, Labour.

It was revealed by Rishi Sunak who admitted that Policy Exchange received funding from US oil giant ExxonMobil who helped the government write its draconian anti-protest laws. It serves as confirmation by the then prime minister of Open Democracy’s revelations that last year’s controversial policing bill, which became the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts (PCSC) Act, may have originated in a briefing from Policy Exchange. The organisation has form therefore in being hostile to rights and protests. It is curious that the Daily Mail, in the vanguard in promoting parliamentary sovereignty and a powerful force in the Brexit debate, failed to mention the influence of American money believed to be behind several of this and other think tanks. Quite where is this ‘sovereignty’ they are keen on?

The limited information provided to Daily Mail readers meant they are unaware of who funds these reports or the motives of the assumed funders (if indeed ExxonMobil are one of the funders). The report’s arguments are thin and present the reader with the notion that human rights were amply protected by our common law and there is no need for this ‘foreign’ court. Were that so and the victims of Hillsborough for example might disagree having been let down by the courts, the police and elements of the media in their search for justice. They finally achieved justice partly with the aid of the Human Rights Act so despised by the Mail. There are many victims of injustice who have found our institutions to be less than favourable to their interests – the Post Office scandal anyone?

1

The World Cup and sportswashing


Major law firm heavily criticised for a whitewash report on Saudi Arabia

November 2024

The 2034 World Cup is to take place in Saudi Arabia a country with a huge range of human rights issues. Women have restricted rights both in law and in practice. They are prevented from participation in sporting activities. Human Rights defenders are routinely intimidated or arrested on spurious charges. There is no religious freedom. There is a heavy toll of death sentences usually by beheading in public. By September 2024, 198 had been executed. Torture is common and suspects are kept for long periods often in solitary confinement without legal representation. Altogether a Kingdom where few freedoms or human rights exist.

FIFA, the world governing body, has been racked by years of controversy and corruption allegations. It would hardly be surprising therefore if the decision to host the 2034 competition in Saudi – following the massive scandal of the Qatar competition – was not accompanied by some corruption or other shady activities.

Enter Clifford Chance, a major London law firm with apparently a good reputation. They have produced a 39 page report in support of the Kingdom which somehow misses the key issues and the multiple human rights infringements. Clifford Chance, along with many other organisations, has a range of fine words praising their high principles. ‘[We] are committed to the highest ethical and professional standards’ they claim. ‘[We act] with integrity, professionalism and fairness.‘ As a firm ‘we have agreed to support and respect internationally recognised human rights both as part of our own commitment to the UN Global Compact and consistent with the UN Guiding Principles.’

So how, it might be asked, does a law firm with such principles and policy statements come to write a report which seems to overlook the massive infringements taking place in the Kingdom? It helps if you do not ask those in a position to know such as the many human rights organisations who have produced report after report detailing the dreadful state of human rights. Instead, you ask the Saudi sports authority itself, SAFF, who helpfully identified the five human rights ‘focal points’ for the (allegedly) ‘independent’ assessment. Reading the 39 pages there is no mention of the multiple human rights infringements which regularly take place in the Kingdom.

The report has produced a ‘shitstorm’ in the Clifford Chance headquarters

The report is nothing short of a disgrace. It is reported that it has produced an ‘internal shitstorm’ in the London headquarters. Eleven human rights organisations have condemned it. A common response to criticisms such as these is that sport enable a better understanding of human rights through sport. Global Citizen is a champion of this view. The difficulty with this idea, noble though it is, is that sport is being used by the likes of Saudi to promote – not human rights and brotherhood – but its own interests.

Another issue is the kafala system which immigrant labour works in desperate conditions for 16 hours a day sometimes in searing heat. The death toll is enormous and it is reported that 21,000 Nepali, Bangladeshi and Indian workers who have died in Saudi since the Vision 30 plan was launched in 2016. The Clifford Chance report dances around this issue with a host of weasel words.

And we must not forget the murder and dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi almost certainly on MBS’s orders.

But should we be surprised? The Kingdom has enormous wealth and company after company is happy to do business there and hold their noses whilst doing so. Why should Clifford Chance be any different? It is alleged that the firm facilitated the removal of fortunes from 400 citizens who were locked in a hotel by Mohammed bin Salman. It is claimed £100bn was removed from them. The enormous wealth of the Gulf states has profited many European and American corporations eager to benefit from the largesse. Any moral scruples seem all too easily to be set aside. That a major law firms should join this jamboree is deeply disappointing. Thousands will die during the course of construction. Hundreds more will be detained without trial. Hundreds will continue to be beheaded. Whatever happened to those ‘highest ethical and professional standards?’

All this in aid of football. The ‘beautiful game’ has become mired in sleaze, corruption and graft. It has now dragged down a respected law firm in its quest to earn big fees.

[UPDATE: 15 November. Inside World Football reports that FIFA deliberately agreed with Saudi to limit the scope of the report into human rights.]

Sources: Amnesty, FIFA, Clifford Chance, The Guardian, New York Times, The Observer, Inside World Football.

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑