Everyone knows the shocking scale of the Tory-led coalition government's proposed changes to the NHS and degree to which they disregard public and expert concerns.
If you care about public healthcare in the UK, write to your MP. NOW.
Below the fold is the letter I have sent to my MP and to various members of the House of Lords, complete with references.
In follow up to my previous post. So I complained to the IPCC. After a number of initially dismissive letters back and forth, I started to get some thoughtful responses. One clarified that
"Under [section 44(2) of the Terrorism Act 2000] officers do not need to have reasonable grounds to suspect involvement in terrorism."
This prompted a measured response on my part and now I have received a final letter from a DI of the British Transport Police. The letter acknowledges the recent European judgements, claims that
“the vast majority of officers do use the powers of search with a genuine belief that that they are protecting the public"
and that
“whether this as been the correct method of prevention perhaps only time and hindsight will tell".
(I’m not going to reproduce it here because the letter appears to be personally written, rather than stock or secretary written.)
Well, I’m happy with that. Not happy, exactly, but at least it’s honest. My beef is no longer with the BTP.
I just watched the compelling documentary Taking Liberties, which prompted me to finally send my complaint to the IPCC, and finish off this draft.
I was travelling Oxford to Cambridge, and had missed my connection at Paddington Station, London. With insufficient money for a hotel, I decided to just sleep in the station and catch the first train back to Cambridge. It was a cold night, so I plugged my headphones into my iPod, switched it to Pseudopod, pulled my Warwick Atheists hoodie tight around me, and sat on a light for warmth. For the next hour or so, I moved between sitting on lights and sitting with my back to a lit sign on a stall, trying to get most warm and most comfortable. There were a few other people in the station — perhaps in similar circumstances, perhaps homeless and seeking shelter from the outside wind. After some time I was dosing and listening to Pseudopod still, when I was woken (about 01:45 am) by a couple of officers in uniform who informed me that they were conducting “random” stop-and-searches under new anti-terrorism regulations. They asked me why I was there, and various other circumstantial questions. They asked to look in my backpack (which contained clothes, university work, laptop, wires).
Here’s a copy of the receipt they issued me before leaving me to sleep, if you're interested:
I looked up “44(2)”, which means “section 44, subsection 2”, presumably, (the only official justification for the search given) and found it in the Terrorism Act 2000. I quote:
Terrorism Act 2000
Power to stop and search
44. Authorisations.
(2) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a pedestrian in an area or at a place specified in the
authorisation and to search —
(a) the pedestrian;
(b) anything carried by him.(3) An authorisation under subsection (1) or (2) may be given only if the person giving it considers it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism.
From this, it doesn't seem like "random" searches are authorised, since they by definition can't be justified as "expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism.
I am submitting a somewhat abbreviated version of this to the IPCC in the form of an official complaint.
This mysterious letter arrived in the mail the other day:
To you, with love
Though I live with other people, I naturally assumed that such an envelope was intended for me. "Who do I know in Glasgow? A long-lost sibling? A secret admirer?" I thought. I opened it up:
Break free with Christ - what a kind thought
That's right. I want to draw your attention to a few choice quotes:
We'd like to be in control, but too often we feel out of control.
[This is because we] go against God's plan for living.
Sound advice. If you feel out of control, instead submit your will to an invisible and unaccountable master who literally owns your soul instead of looking at any real problems and their causes. Now that's a healthy and productive way to think.
[Jesus'] death on the cross, and resurrection three days later broke the power of sin over us
Yes. Because that makes complete sense.
Making fun of ridiculous Christians used to be fun! It's like they're not even trying anymore.
Yet another credit card application mass-mailing from Halifax. This kind of thing annoys me so much. This is what email and spam filters are designed for. If you're going to send mail to (I assume) every one of your many thousands of customers, and it's likely that 99 out of 100 of them will throw it right in the trash, why put it on paper? Waste of money, waste of resources, waste of energy. And if you get one of these, you have to open it (it looks just like a bank statement or other legitimate communication). Bastards.
They were even confident enough of my ignorance/financial desparation to include a pre-paid business return envelope. Fools. I used it.
I mentioned in an earlier blog post that I had noticed a Cambridge Costa Coffee using heat lamps, and that I would write an angry letter to them. Well I have. Here is a copy.
Alternatively, if you don't want a .pdf file, here's the full text:
Guest Relations,
Whitbread Group plc,
Oakley House,
Oakley Road,
Luton,
LU4 9QH
Regarding: The use of heat lamps in the Cambridge Grad Arcade branch of Costa Coffee
Sunday, 1 February 2009
To whom it may concern,
As you will no doubt be aware, the Costa Coffee branch in Cambridge’s new Grand Arcade shopping mall deploys the use of heat lamps under its equally pointless (given that the housing mall is roofed) but otherwise inoffensive umbrellas to warm its seating area. I am writing to complain at this outrageous and wasteful practice. I find it difficult to express my feelings on your choice to use these appliances, as it seems such a mindless, gross unacceptability that I can not begin to comprehend the middle-management rationalising* that must have been employed to come up with this.
It may seem like a small and insignificant matter in the scheme of a more socially endemic problem, but this does not diminish the fact that you have made an active choice (the wrong choice) that is so morally unjustifiable. That it is left to me, a member of the public, to bring this to your attention when otherwise you would apparently be happy to continue as you are, I find personally insulting.
As concerned and informed persons, as I am sure you are, you are certainly aware of the scale and immediacy of the human tragedies that will** be a result of the decadence and unsustainable consumption of the wealthy and technologically developed countries of the world.
There is exactly one way in which such matters will change for the better, and that is if everyone decides to make a change. This applies more to you, as a large corporation, than to any individuals. The decisions you make will have much more of an impact. The choice is apparently a simple one: either actively reduce carbon emissions (which, in your case, requires a reduction in energy consumption) because you feel a responsibility to the lives and livelihoods of the rest of your species; or scrape around for as much revenue for your corporation as possible, without a thought to the consequences. It seems fairly clear which choice you have made, and it is for this reason that I will not be patronising any Costa Coffee retail establishment in future, and likewise encouraging others to support ethics and reason with their wallets. At this point I am not going to offer to once again become a loyal customer if the aforementioned appliances are removed because, frankly, you shouldn’t require such motivation.
A public copy of this letter can now be found online, where I shall also post the response I expect from you.
Faithfully yours,
Cai Wingfield
---
* Especially when you claim to “minimise waste and the use of resources across the business, wherever possible”. Laughable.
** I’m sure that as a corporation which claims to “recognise the potential scale of our environmental impact”, you’ll be aware of the recent report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Colorado that (as reported in the national press: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7852628.stm) we have already reached the point where many of the effects of climate change have become irreversible. Damage limitation is now the only option.
![[.jpg]](http://www.caiwingfield.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/stopandsearch.jpg){kind=link}