The Stephen Lawrence ‘smear’ proves that we cannot trust the state to snoop 2


Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, writing in the Daily Telegraph, reflects on the revelations that the Metropolitan Police’s Special Demonstration Squad was asked to discover “any intelligence that could have smeared the campaign” for justice for Stephen Lawrence. He concludes:

It is against this background that the Government has on its books a Communications Bill that will enhance the snooping power of the state. To his great credit the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, has continued to oppose this even after the brutal murder of Lee Rigby in Woolwich. He is right to do this because the more unbridled access the state is given to private information, the higher the risk that it will be abused. Under existing powers in 2011, 494,078 requests were made for communications data under Part 1, Chapter II of the Regulation of Investigatory Power Act, 2000. This enormous amount of information no doubt includes some that will stop crime or solve it but it will inevitably include superfluous data that are no business of the authorities. This needs to be kept under strict control of senior and accountable figures to minimise the chances of abuse. And these need to be outside the organisation requesting the information, otherwise the potential for corruption is too great.

It is in the nature of a government and its agencies to think that they are on the side of good and those who are against them are not. Sometimes this allows the end to justify the means. The Metropolitan Police is an essential and mainly benign institution. Individual police officers, such as those who guard the Houses of Parliament, are of the highest calibre, professional, friendly and courageous. Yet it is not an organisation that likes to admit to mistakes, hence the alleged disgraceful treatment of the Lawrence family. This has shown that even those who have nothing to hide have something to fear from state intrusion. The only way to control this is to limit the powers that are available and make intrusion subject to external warrants. These ought to come from Justices of the Peace, the lay-magistry taken from our fellow citizens or in the most serious cases from senior politicians who are accountable to Parliament for their actions. Who guards the guards themselves? It can only be the people.


2 thoughts on “The Stephen Lawrence ‘smear’ proves that we cannot trust the state to snoop

  • Tom Welsh

    In this one specific case, the Prime Minister has seen fit to enter the arena in the most public way. Why? He smells political opportunity.

    Are we to believe that this is the only case of the police – or other authorities, such as the NHS “Stasi” – calling for a three-whip smear campaign against someone who displeases them? (Julian Assange, anyone?)

    So why is this the only case in which David Cameron has seen fit to meddle? It’s transparently obvious that he doesn’t care at all about the rights of whistleblowers, or the interests of the public, or for that matter the need for the police to behave themselves.

    Al he is interested in is getting some favourable publicity for himself.

  • Tom Welsh

    In this one specific case, the Prime Minister has seen fit to enter the arena in the most public way. Why? He smells political opportunity.

    Are we to believe that this is the only case of the police – or other authorities, such as the NHS “Stasi” – calling for a three-whip smear campaign against someone who displeases them? (Julian Assange, anyone?)

    So why is this the only case in which David Cameron has seen fit to meddle? It’s transparently obvious that he doesn’t care at all about the rights of whistleblowers, or the interests of the public, or for that matter the need for the police to behave themselves.

    Al he is interested in is getting some favourable publicity for himself.

Comments are closed.