Is the Home Secretary being played by the securicrats?

Number 413 in my series of Questions to Which the Answer is No is asked by Jonathan Derbyshire at the New Statesman. He quotes Andrew Rawnsley’s interesting column in which Rawnsley makes the mistake of assuming that the security services want to take away people’s civil liberties (because … er, contd p94) and therefore have to think up pretend threats in order to justify extraordinary powers:

Insiders believe an inexperienced home secretary has been easily captured by securicrats who are always reluctant to give up powers once they have them.

This is moonshine with a silly hat on. The reason these uncomfortable and difficult powers, which no one in the security services would want, are retained is because there are a small number of people who they, the courts and the independent anti-terrorism law reviewer accept pose a potential threat to you, me, Shami Chakrabarti, Jonathan Derbyshire, Andrew Rawnsley and all.

Further reading here, here and here.

Recent Posts on Eagle Eye

• "I'm not going to do ANYTHING for you"
• When Brown feared that Blair wouldn't go ahead with Iraq
• What to do about Syria?
• "It’s almost as if New Labour didn’t happen"
• Top 10 Useful Words For Which English Has No Equivalent

• postageincluded

  Shucks! I’d never have thunk that, Dorothy!

• StarDasher

  “What happens when a less than benevolent government takes power? One that decides to hijack or abuse it’s power. When all sanctions of the state can be used against an individual, group or even the majority of it’s citizens? They can use those powers, that legislation, those laws and judges and you will not be able to challange it.”

  Read these columns and you would appreciate that that’s what we’ve just had for 13 wasted years.

• http://bob-idle.livejournal.com/ bob idle

  Nit picking:

  should it be securocrats ?