politicscouk--2020-08-07--Week in Review: Small Brexity pickings

Week in Review: Small Brexity pickings

When they sign it , it 'll be a moment of supposed victory .
Free trade talks between the UK and Japan are entering their final stages .
There are a few remaining issues on tariffs for Japanese car exports and UK service access , but they 're likely to be cleared up soon .
Once both sides shake on it , there 'll be some minor jubilation in the Brexit ranks - global Britain emerges at last , leaving Europe and seeking out trading partners across the globe , doing all the things Remainers insisted they could not .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The deal is largely a roll-over of the existing EU-Japan free trade agreement from February 2019 , with a couple of tweaks .
The Japanese have made clear the British deal can not be as ambitious as the one with the EU , because the UK is a more minor player .
The agreement is expected to boost UK GDP by 0.07 % , compared to an expected five per cent loss to GDP over the next 15 years from leaving the customs union and single market .
That 's not because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is pretty much par for the course .
Free trade deals only have a negligible impact on GDP .
Without the rocket boosters of the single market and customs union , the trading impact is far less than you 'd expect .
They also come saddled with country-of-origin checks which limit how effective they can be .
Despite all that , they 're worth doing .
It 's good to see both sides pushing for it and commendable that they look set to be getting it sorted early - although that 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get something on paper in case no-deal hits at the end of the year .
But we should be clear about what we 're seeing here .
These are paltry rewards , essentially just a replication of what we already had , secured at great time and effort .
They are a very long way distant from the high-flying promises of Global Britain or the assurances that the UK would do better outside the EU than inside .
There 'll be much more like this to come - deals done just to stand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treated as evidence of Britain surging forward .
In fact they are a form of fighting retreat , the salvaging of basic privileges as the fundamental trading background falls away .
And once again , at the end of it all , you 'll have that same nagging question : What exactly are the advantages of this ?
Why is it that the best any initiative can aspire to is being just a little bit worse than what we had before ?
In truth , the day is fast approaching when the Brexit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Leave government has been given this year to engage in its talks .
Soon , the time for that will have passed .
Brexit will be happening , not as a legal transition , but as a practical one .
And then ministers will have to account for themselves .
They will have to explain the damage we see , justify why this is happening and demonstrate what the advantages are .
On current evidence , that seems a task they are likely to struggle with .
Ian Dunt is editor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To Be A Liberal , is out later this year .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

When they sign it, it'll be a moment of supposed victory. Free trade talks between the UK and Japan are entering their final stages. There are a few remaining issues on tariffs for Japanese car exports and UK service access, but they're likely to be cleared up soon. Once both sides shake on it, there'll be some minor jubilation in the Brexit ranks – global Britain emerges at last, leaving Europe and seeking out trading partners across the globe, doing all the things Remainers insisted they could not.
A dose of reality is therefore required. The deal is largely a roll-over of the existing EU-Japan free trade agreement from February 2019, with a couple of tweaks. The Japanese have made clear the British deal cannot be as ambitious as the one with the EU, because the UK is a more minor player.
The agreement is expected to boost UK GDP by 0.07%, compared to an expected five per cent loss to GDP over the next 15 years from leaving the customs union and single market.
That's not because the UK is negotiating particularly badly. This is pretty much par for the course. Free trade deals only have a negligible impact on GDP. Without the rocket boosters of the single market and customs union, the trading impact is far less than you'd expect. They also come saddled with country-of-origin checks which limit how effective they can be.
Despite all that, they're worth doing. It's good to see both sides pushing for it and commendable that they look set to be getting it sorted early – although that's predominantly the result of Japan needing to get something on paper in case no-deal hits at the end of the year.
But we should be clear about what we're seeing here. These are paltry rewards, essentially just a replication of what we already had, secured at great time and effort. They are a very long way distant from the high-flying promises of Global Britain or the assurances that the UK would do better outside the EU than inside.
There'll be much more like this to come – deals done just to stand still. Each time they will be treated as evidence of Britain surging forward. In fact they are a form of fighting retreat, the salvaging of basic privileges as the fundamental trading background falls away.
And once again, at the end of it all, you'll have that same nagging question: What exactly are the advantages of this? Why is it that the best any initiative can aspire to is being just a little bit worse than what we had before?
In truth, the day is fast approaching when the Brexit chickens will come home to roost. The Leave government has been given this year to engage in its talks. Soon, the time for that will have passed. Brexit will be happening, not as a legal transition, but as a practical one. And then ministers will have to account for themselves. They will have to explain the damage we see, justify why this is happening and demonstrate what the advantages are. On current evidence, that seems a task they are likely to struggle with.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out later this year.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-08-10--Tory Brexiters turn against the deal they helped secure

We were told it was an `` oven-ready deal '' .
But despite the withdrawal agreement having the pride of place in the Conservative party manifesto and no Conservative MPs voting against it , some Brexiter Tory MPs have now turned against it – including David Davis and now Iain Duncan Smith .
IDS in particular has transformed his U-turn into a car crash .
He praised Boris Johnson 's article exulting the withdrawal agreement and ridiculed the idea of debating the agreement at length on the grounds that it had been examined in detail already , but now says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fine print '' – to the tune of a £160 billion liability for the UK .
Do their criticisms of the agreement have any merit ?
As James Crisp has pointed out , Duncan Smith 's claim about a £160 billion liability assumes that every single one of the European Investment Bank 's investments fails without restructuring ( the Bank has an AAA credit rating ) – and that the EU countries decide to call upon capital rather than find other means of covering the liability .
The £160bn figure comes from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to rely upon it for EU law analysis –Ipso has previously rapped it for inaccuracy with regards to EU citizen benefits , EU trade policy , the Queen 's view of the EU and the effect of EU membership on jobs .
For his part , Davis ' claimed that a free trade agreement was `` implicit '' in the withdrawal agreement .
But all the agreement does is require both sides to use their `` best endeavours '' to `` negotiate '' a free trade deal .
In any event , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be unilaterally decided by one side and does not result in a unilateral power to end the treaty .
The withdrawal agreement does allow the Northern Ireland Assembly to end the special protocol on the Irish border , under certain circumstances - but otherwise there 's no unilateral power to terminate it .
As I have discussed in detail , this means that disputes about interpretation of the agreement have to be settled by its rules on dispute settlement .
For instance , in the event that arbitrators find a breach , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no mention of terminating the treaty .
Alternatively , it is possible for the agreement to be revised with the consent of all parties – but the EU is not interested in renegotiating .
Given that both these MPs voted for the agreement , they 've hardly covered their tracks .
It 's less of a crime drama than a comedy – not so much Professor Moriarty as Dr Evil .
Colombo would nab Davis in five minutes , without even having to say `` just one more thing '' .
Agatha Christie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drawing room denouement .
Having stood over the body holding the murder weapon since the first page , Duncan Smith 's only defence would be to call Hercule Poirot an `` unelected Brussels bureaucrat '' .
So why so obviously say one thing a few months ago and the opposite thing today ?
It could be that they genuinely forgot the platform they ran on , or what they voted for a few months ago .
But to paraphrase a famous Doctor Who quote , `` nobody could be as stupid as they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that they never meant what they said , biding their time until what they judged to be an appropriate moment to advocate trashing an agreement they never liked in the first place .
In fact , Duncan Smith has in effect subsequently confirmed this , in an article falsely claiming that the withdrawal agreement is a `` work in progress '' and that the UK can still `` reject '' it .
He also apparently seeks to trash the agreement 's provisions on citizens ' rights – which already fall below what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ falsely claims that the EU is refusing to negotiate on services ( the EU proposal for a trade deal contains 34 pages on this issue ) .
Needless to say , given the position that he ran on to get elected , this is pure charlatanry .
Note that the Brexit party , which did run against the withdrawal agreement in the last election , got two per cent of the vote .
So there is not the scintilla of an argument for a democratic mandate to denounce the withdrawal agreement here .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ angry sounds from the Conservative backbenches .
It remains to be seen whether the government adopts the view that the withdrawal agreement should be repudiated , and what the EU would do in response .
But it is a useful reminder that at least some of those advocating the hardest of Brexits have the lowest amount of integrity .
Steve Peers is professor of law at the University of Essex .
You can follow him on Twitter here .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the website or its owners .

By Steve Peers
We were told it was an "oven-ready deal". But despite the withdrawal agreement having pride of place in the Conservative party manifesto and no Conservative MPs voting against it, some Brexiter Tory MPs have now turned against it – including David Davis and now Iain Duncan Smith.
IDS in particular has transformed his U-turn into a car crash. He praised Boris Johnson's article exulting the withdrawal agreement and ridiculed the idea of debating the agreement at length on the grounds that it had been examined in detail already, but now says bits of it were "buried in the fine print" – to the tune of a £160 billion liability for the UK.
Do their criticisms of the agreement have any merit? As James Crisp has pointed out, Duncan Smith's claim about a £160 billion liability assumes that every single one of the European Investment Bank's investments fails without restructuring (the Bank has an AAA credit rating) – and that the EU countries decide to call upon capital rather than find other means of covering the liability.
The £160bn figure comes from the Sun and it might be unwise to rely upon it for EU law analysis –Ipso has previously rapped it for inaccuracy with regards to EU citizen benefits, EU trade policy, the Queen's view of the EU and the effect of EU membership on jobs.
For his part, Davis' claimed that a free trade agreement was "implicit" in the withdrawal agreement. But all the agreement does is require both sides to use their "best endeavours" to "negotiate" a free trade deal. In any event, a breach of the agreement cannot simply be unilaterally decided by one side and does not result in a unilateral power to end the treaty.
The withdrawal agreement does allow the Northern Ireland Assembly to end the special protocol on the Irish border, under certain circumstances – but otherwise there's no unilateral power to terminate it. As I have discussed in detail, this means that disputes about interpretation of the agreement have to be settled by its rules on dispute settlement. For instance, in the event that arbitrators find a breach, there could be fines – but there's no mention of terminating the treaty. Alternatively, it is possible for the agreement to be revised with the consent of all parties – but the EU is not interested in renegotiating.
Given that both these MPs voted for the agreement, they've hardly covered their tracks. It's less of a crime drama than a comedy – not so much Professor Moriarty as Dr Evil. Colombo would nab Davis in five minutes, without even having to say "just one more thing". Agatha Christie would not have to write a convoluted drawing room denouement. Having stood over the body holding the murder weapon since the first page, Duncan Smith's only defence would be to call Hercule Poirot an "unelected Brussels bureaucrat".
So why so obviously say one thing a few months ago and the opposite thing today? It could be that they genuinely forgot the platform they ran on, or what they voted for a few months ago. But to paraphrase a famous Doctor Who quote, "nobody could be as stupid as they seem". The more likely scenario is that they never meant what they said, biding their time until what they judged to be an appropriate moment to advocate trashing an agreement they never liked in the first place.
In fact, Duncan Smith has in effect subsequently confirmed this, in an article falsely claiming that the withdrawal agreement is a "work in progress" and that the UK can still "reject" it. He also apparently seeks to trash the agreement's provisions on citizens' rights – which already fall below what the Vote Leave campaign promised – and falsely claims that the EU is refusing to negotiate on services (the EU proposal for a trade deal contains 34 pages on this issue).
Needless to say, given the position that he ran on to get elected, this is pure charlatanry. Note that the Brexit party, which did run against the withdrawal agreement in the last election, got two per cent of the vote. So there is not the scintilla of an argument for a democratic mandate to denounce the withdrawal agreement here.
At the moment these are small, angry sounds from the Conservative backbenches. It remains to be seen whether the government adopts the view that the withdrawal agreement should be repudiated, and what the EU would do in response. But it is a useful reminder that at least some of those advocating the hardest of Brexits have the lowest amount of integrity.
Steve Peers is professor of law at the University of Essex. You can follow him on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-08-11--Ongoing EU-China deal casts a long shadow over Brexit talks

The EU trade discussions earlier this month were littered with buzzwords : level playing field , economic governance , market access , coronavirus response , finance and taxation cooperation .
So far , so Brexity .
But the EU was n't in talks with the UK .
These were discussions with China , the EU 's second biggest trading partner after the US .
For its part , the EU is China 's largest trading partner .
Both sides have a lot to play for .
Sino-European talks are n't a new thing .
Relations were established in 1975 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investment agreement which would deliver predictable , long-term mutual access to the EU and Chinese markets .
There have so far been 31 negotiating rounds , including the one earlier this month .
One of the core topics of discussion was the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment ( CAI ) , a weighty set of issues which boil down , very approximately , to EU businesses being treated in China the way Chinese businesses are treated in the EU .
A Sino-European Free Trade Agreement ( FTA ) could pave the way for huge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In 2017 , for example , Chinese research suggested that an FTA could boost EU exports to China by a third between 2020 and 2025 , with Chinese exports to the EU rising by a fifth .
Given that China-EU trade is already worth more than €1billion a day , that 's a very big prize .
China is eager to agree a 2025 Cooperation Agenda with the EU , a strategic initiative with the potential to reset Sino-European relations in areas ranging from climate control and energy security to science and technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to overcome , and it 's one that will sound familiar to anyone following the UK 's negotiations with Europe .
The 2025 Cooperation Agenda and the CAI are dependent on the satisfaction of a gnarly set of issues which include level playing field considerations .
That 's an ambitious goal , given the barriers China has erected to outside businesses .
China remains a state-driven economy , focused on developing domestic winners .
Its home markets are shielded from foreign competition by barriers to entry – from licensing and investment restrictions to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in China 2025 plan aims to increase Chinese tech power – not only in telecoms , but also areas such as robotics and artificial intelligence .
It is likely to see China follow the route favoured by Japan and Korea , moving from a low-cost production economy to a much more creative and value-added model .
But to capitalise on this , China needs to ensure it has access to global markets – markets which are only too aware of how lopsided Chinese trading rules have been and are demanding change .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to its dealings with China for many years .
It will not budge until it considers the playing field to be level , so that both sides are playing by the same rules .
Progress is being made .
Success is not a given , but there is reason to believe China may abandon some of its protectionist practices in pursuit of a lucrative win-win deal with the EU .
So what can we learn from this about the Brexit negotiations ?
The EU has made it clear that level playing field considerations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contention such as fisheries policy , must be addressed as a matter of priority in any trade negotiations .
If it 's not prepared to budge for mighty China , it 's not likely to roll over for the UK , given that would create a low-cost competitor on its doorstep and undercut EU businesses .
But the Chinese deal also reveals something more deep-seated about the UK-EU negotiations .
There is , right now , a historic opportunity to build on our proximity to Europe , if we seize the same advantages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is why business leaders and organisations such as Best for Britain have been pushing the government to agree a comprehensive trade deal with the EU .
With economies reeling from the impact of covid , it has never been more important to maximise mutual economic benefits .
If China is prepared to contemplate significant change to its business practices in pursuit of closer EU links and a lucrative FTA , why on Earth is Britain threatening to chuck any chance of a comprehensive trade deal in the Channel ?
Brexit has been delivered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ EU .
But we have links , knowledge and allies in Europe that China can only dream of .
They provide an opportunity to take Brexit and turn it into a showcase of how trade with the EU can best be done , starting with the level playing field .
Far from being something to fear , we should see it for what it is – a chance for British businesses to fight fairly in that massive market on our doorstep .
If we turn down that chance , we 're going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businesses are lumbered with crippling costs to enter the single market and competing for European business with the EU 's newest FTA partner : Beijing .
Naomi Smith is chief executive of non-partisan advocacy group Best for Britain , who are campaigning for a comprehensive UK-EU trade deal .
She studied Chinese at the University of Leeds and previously lived in Shanghai .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Naomi Smith
The EU trade discussions earlier this month were littered with buzzwords: level playing field, economic governance, market access, coronavirus response, finance and taxation cooperation.
So far, so Brexity. But the EU wasn't in talks with the UK. These were discussions with China, the EU's second biggest trading partner after the US. For its part, the EU is China's largest trading partner. Both sides have a lot to play for.
Sino-European talks aren't a new thing. Relations were established in 1975 and in 2013 efforts began to produce an investment agreement which would deliver predictable, long-term mutual access to the EU and Chinese markets. There have so far been 31 negotiating rounds, including the one earlier this month.
One of the core topics of discussion was the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI), a weighty set of issues which boil down, very approximately, to EU businesses being treated in China the way Chinese businesses are treated in the EU.
A Sino-European Free Trade Agreement (FTA) could pave the way for huge increases in business between the blocs. In 2017, for example, Chinese research suggested that an FTA could boost EU exports to China by a third between 2020 and 2025, with Chinese exports to the EU rising by a fifth. Given that China-EU trade is already worth more than €1billion a day, that's a very big prize.
China is eager to agree a 2025 Cooperation Agenda with the EU, a strategic initiative with the potential to reset Sino-European relations in areas ranging from climate control and energy security to science and technology.
But there's a major hurdle to overcome, and it's one that will sound familiar to anyone following the UK's negotiations with Europe. The 2025 Cooperation Agenda and the CAI are dependent on the satisfaction of a gnarly set of issues which include level playing field considerations.
That's an ambitious goal, given the barriers China has erected to outside businesses. China remains a state-driven economy, focused on developing domestic winners. Its home markets are shielded from foreign competition by barriers to entry – from licensing and investment restrictions to large state subsidies.
An ambitious Made in China 2025 plan aims to increase Chinese tech power – not only in telecoms, but also areas such as robotics and artificial intelligence. It is likely to see China follow the route favoured by Japan and Korea, moving from a low-cost production economy to a much more creative and value-added model. But to capitalise on this, China needs to ensure it has access to global markets – markets which are only too aware of how lopsided Chinese trading rules have been and are demanding change.
The EU has been working to bring fairness to its dealings with China for many years. It will not budge until it considers the playing field to be level, so that both sides are playing by the same rules.
Progress is being made. Success is not a given, but there is reason to believe China may abandon some of its protectionist practices in pursuit of a lucrative win-win deal with the EU.
So what can we learn from this about the Brexit negotiations?
The EU has made it clear that level playing field considerations, as well as other areas of contention such as fisheries policy, must be addressed as a matter of priority in any trade negotiations. If it's not prepared to budge for mighty China, it's not likely to roll over for the UK, given that would create a low-cost competitor on its doorstep and undercut EU businesses.
But the Chinese deal also reveals something more deep-seated about the UK-EU negotiations. There is, right now, a historic opportunity to build on our proximity to Europe, if we seize the same advantages that the Chinese are seeking.
This is why business leaders and organisations such as Best for Britain have been pushing the government to agree a comprehensive trade deal with the EU. With economies reeling from the impact of covid, it has never been more important to maximise mutual economic benefits.
If China is prepared to contemplate significant change to its business practices in pursuit of closer EU links and a lucrative FTA, why on Earth is Britain threatening to chuck any chance of a comprehensive trade deal in the Channel?
Brexit has been delivered. We're shuffling out of the EU. But we have links, knowledge and allies in Europe that China can only dream of. They provide an opportunity to take Brexit and turn it into a showcase of how trade with the EU can best be done, starting with the level playing field. Far from being something to fear, we should see it for what it is – a chance for British businesses to fight fairly in that massive market on our doorstep.
If we turn down that chance, we're going to get to 2025 and find that our businesses are lumbered with crippling costs to enter the single market and competing for European business with the EU's newest FTA partner: Beijing.
Naomi Smith is chief executive of non-partisan advocacy group Best for Britain, who are campaigning for a comprehensive UK-EU trade deal. She studied Chinese at the University of Leeds and previously lived in Shanghai.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-08-13--Police use of secretive facial recognition software stopped by the courts

When Ed Bridges was scanned by South Wales police using facial recognition tech he was shocked at how invasive this new technology could be .
Since then , with the help of human rights campaign group Liberty , Bridges has managed to turn UK police use of Automated Facial Recognition ( AFR ) on its head . '
On Monday , after three years of campaigning , Bridge 's efforts resulted in a win for privacy .
The court of appeal decided that an initial finding last September by Cardiff high court was wrong .
South Wales Police - and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deploying AFR illegally .
According to the ruling , the police failed in their public sector equality duty by using a technology that is known to result in both racial and sexual discrimination .
In addition , the police failed to engage in a data protection impact assessment that fully complied with the Data Protection Act 2018 , as a result of which people 's data privacy rights were flouted .
There is no doubt that the use of AFR technology under these circumstances is genuinely disturbing , especially when you fully comprehend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the general public .
When AFR is deployed in public areas , the police scan every single person .
Their justification for this is that they only ever look for a specific watchlist of faces .
Everybody else who is scanned , the police claim , is of no interest and is therefore not being put at risk .
But the reality is quite different , as the court of appeal has now ruled .
When AFR scans people 's faces it must create a biometric representation of that individual 's face .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ face - made up of hundreds of unique measurements - that is then compared to the police 's watchlist .
This biometric information is highly sensitive , because it can be used to identify an individual time and time again , for the rest of their life .
The dangers posed by collecting this data are very serious .
They depend on how it is processed , transported , shared and stored .
Without a proper impact assessment , it is impossible to know if the data has been processed securely .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illegally scanning people 's faces without their consent and accumulating that data God-knows-where or for what potential secondary purposes .
Since South Wales police began using AFR in 2015 , they have admitted to scanning and collecting the biometric information of 500,000 faces .
The vast majority of those people were completely innocent bystanders .
AFR technology has also been rolled out by police in Leicestershire and London in public places such as streets , shopping centres , outside football stadiums , and at large events such as the Notting Hill Carnival .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ surveillance technologies has been escalating , and the rate with which invasive technologies have been worming their way into British society is alarming .
Government ministers and authorities were warned that this surveillance technology was being rolled out prematurely , if not illegally .
In a blog post on the subject , surveillance camera commissioner Tony Porter recently stated that he has been `` crying out '' for the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice to be updated in his annual report to the home secretary .
Porter also appealed to the Home Office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ framework that governs the use of AFR .
Despite these official recommendations , he was all but ignored .
In the Home Office 's 2018 biometrics strategy , there was actually a commitment to update the code .
Unfortunately , that commitment never came to fruition , presumably because the government 's desire to keep rolling out AFR with impunity was greater .
That process has now been halted .
The ruling affects the use of AFR right across the UK , making it illegal for any police force to use the technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Porter argues that there needs to be much greater scrutiny and specificity when creating police watchlists of subjects to be scanned .
The locations chosen for AFR to be deployed must be justifiable , with reasonable evidence that watchlist subjects will actually be in those locations at those times .
While these kinds of alterations to the Code will undoubtedly improve the situation , they also leave me with a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach .
South Wales police have already indicated that the ruling is something they `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not intend to appeal against it .
This is concerning , because it indicates that they believe they will be back to using the technology , legally , in short order .
You may wonder how that is possible , and the answer can be found by looking at our fairly recent history .
When Ed Snowden revealed that governments had been working together to perform mass surveillance and bulk data retention , states reacted by creating new surveillance laws to allow for those previously secretive and illegal activities to continue .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fast-track new policies that use national security as a justification for people ’ s right to be trampled all over .
This potential outcome must be opposed at all costs .
The UK government must be forcibly encouraged to engage in a comprehensive review of the legislative framework that governs the use of invasive surveillance technologies .
The proposals it reaches must be correctly consulted on .
Innocent citizens ' face data should be designated as highly protected and sensitive biometric info that must be disposed of as soon as it is found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This rare win in favor of privacy must lead to actions that strengthen rather than weaken the legal frameworks .
Ray Walsh is a digital privacy expert at ProPrivacy .
You can follow the group on Twitter here .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Ray Walsh
When Ed Bridges was scanned by South Wales police using facial recognition tech, he was shocked at how invasive this new technology could be. Since then, with the help of human rights campaign group Liberty, Bridges has managed to turn UK police use of Automated Facial Recognition (AFR) on its head.'
On Monday, after three years of campaigning, Bridge's efforts resulted in a win for privacy. The court of appeal decided that an initial finding last September by Cardiff high court was wrong. South Wales Police – and other UK forces – have therefore been deploying AFR illegally.
According to the ruling, the police failed in their public sector equality duty by using a technology that is known to result in both racial and sexual discrimination. In addition, the police failed to engage in a data protection impact assessment that fully complied with the Data Protection Act 2018, as a result of which people's data privacy rights were flouted.
There is no doubt that the use of AFR technology under these circumstances is genuinely disturbing, especially when you fully comprehend what it means for innocent members of the general public.
When AFR is deployed in public areas, the police scan every single person. Their justification for this is that they only ever look for a specific watchlist of faces. Everybody else who is scanned, the police claim, is of no interest and is therefore not being put at risk. But the reality is quite different, as the court of appeal has now ruled.
When AFR scans people's faces, it must create a biometric representation of that individual's face. It is this digital map of the face – made up of hundreds of unique measurements – that is then compared to the police's watchlist. This biometric information is highly sensitive, because it can be used to identify an individual time and time again, for the rest of their life.
The dangers posed by collecting this data are very serious. They depend on how it is processed, transported, shared and stored. Without a proper impact assessment, it is impossible to know if the data has been processed securely. As a result, the police have been illegally scanning people's faces without their consent and accumulating that data God-knows-where or for what potential secondary purposes.
Since South Wales police began using AFR in 2015, they have admitted to scanning and collecting the biometric information of 500,000 faces. The vast majority of those people were completely innocent bystanders. AFR technology has also been rolled out by police in Leicestershire and London in public places such as streets, shopping centres, outside football stadiums, and at large events such as the Notting Hill Carnival.
Mission creep in the form of invasive surveillance technologies has been escalating, and the rate with which invasive technologies have been worming their way into British society is alarming.
Government ministers and authorities were warned that this surveillance technology was being rolled out prematurely, if not illegally. In a blog post on the subject, surveillance camera commissioner Tony Porter recently stated that he has been "crying out" for the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice to be updated in his annual report to the home secretary. Porter also appealed to the Home Office in his attempts to update the legal framework that governs the use of AFR. Despite these official recommendations, he was all but ignored.
In the Home Office's 2018 biometrics strategy, there was actually a commitment to update the code. Unfortunately, that commitment never came to fruition, presumably because the government's desire to keep rolling out AFR with impunity was greater.
That process has now been halted. The ruling affects the use of AFR right across the UK, making it illegal for any police force to use the technology until it has been brought before parliament.
Porter argues that there needs to be much greater scrutiny and specificity when creating police watchlists of subjects to be scanned. The locations chosen for AFR to be deployed must be justifiable, with reasonable evidence that watchlist subjects will actually be in those locations at those times.
While these kinds of alterations to the Code will undoubtedly improve the situation, they also leave me with a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach. South Wales police have already indicated that the ruling is something they "can work with" and they do not intend to appeal against it. This is concerning, because it indicates that they believe they will be back to using the technology, legally, in short order.
You may wonder how that is possible, and the answer can be found by looking at our fairly recent history. When Ed Snowden revealed that governments had been working together to perform mass surveillance and bulk data retention, states reacted by creating new surveillance laws to allow those previously secretive and illegal activities to continue.
The danger now is that the government will fast-track new policies that use national security as a justification for people’s rights to be trampled all over. This potential outcome must be opposed at all costs. The UK government must be forcibly encouraged to engage in a comprehensive review of the legislative framework that governs the use of invasive surveillance technologies. The proposals it reaches must be correctly consulted on. Innocent citizens' face data should be designated as highly protected and sensitive biometric info that must be disposed of as soon as it is found to be worthless to the ongoing investigation.
This rare win in favor of privacy must lead to actions that strengthen rather than weaken the legal frameworks.
Ray Walsh is a digital privacy expert at ProPrivacy. You can follow the group on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-08-14--Week in Review: Patel deepens the moral collapse of the Home Office

It was a telling phrase .
Priti Patel is planning to bring in new legislation to stop refugees staying in Britain this year .
According to one MP she spoke to , she said proudly that `` the left are going to have a meltdown '' .
Helpful stuff .
Suddenly all the trappings disappeared and you could see the true motivation driving government action .
The objective world was not pertinent .
The concept of problems emerging and being addressed was irrelevant .
The real issue was the culture war - the appeal to divisive wedge issues , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against another .
Angering the left evidently is n't some charming side-effect of her legislation , or proof that she is pursuing a successful course .
It is the purpose of the legislation .
This sounds deranged , a government operating according to the pleasure it derives from upsetting its opponents .
But in fact it is an increasingly common way of conducting politics .
That , after all , is what we see online when someone proudly proclaims that they 've been 'blocked by X ' - the celebration of having upset @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the emotional undercurrent to the manner in which so much debate is conducted online , trying to frame statements in the way that will most provoke the other side , gaining a kind of succour from their offence .
This is the blood-circulation of tribalism , the way it rots the brain , making your sense of the world dependent on the reactions of those like you and unlike you , rather than the empirical reality of it .
Ironically it entails a kind of slavery , where your own sense of who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defined in the negative by your opponents .
It is now , and has been for some time , the operating manual of British government .
Patel 's response to the made-up refugee crisis is an example of it .
We can glean a couple of likely proposals in Patel 's planned legislation from the news report on her chat with Tory MPs .
`` She talked about how the asylum system is broken , is exploited by leftie Labour-supporting lawyers who are sending us legal letters every day to try to stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' one told the Times .
It 's true the asylum system is broken .
The Home Office takes months - and sometimes years - to process claims , leaving people in a state of half life , subsisting on about £5 a day , unable to work , unable to socialise , unable to provide for their children beyond mere sustenance .
But that is not the kind of broken Patel is talking about .
She is targeting the legal rights for asylum seekers .
It seems likely that the home secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new information being brought to asylum cases after interview .
The `` leftie Labour-supporting lawyers '' she despises so much are , in reality , guardians of the legal rights of the most vulnerable and marginalised people in our society .
How they vote is irrelevant .
Patel has no knowledge of it , although her assumption that anyone who opposes her must be in league with the opposition speaks volumes .
The people they protect are thrust into a system that is insanely complicated and impenetrable , even to someone who grew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first language .
In many cases there is no written guidance about the conditions they have faced at home .
This was the situation , for instance , with certain ethnic groups in Afghanistan .
The Home Office stated simply that Kabul was safe .
In fact , if you were a member of certain ethnic groups , it was not .
Lawyers , advisers and charities therefore often commission expert guidance themselves and submit it , either in the initial application phase or in the court .
This is the kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fair .
But it gets in the way of removals , so it seems a likely target for Patel 's coming legislation .
There are other ways in which providing new information is crucial .
Women who experience sexual violence are often reticent about mentioning it , especially to someone they 've never met in a clinical processing centre in Croydon , and this reticence means that valid claims are rejected .
Often it has to be coaxed out of them by more sympathetic figures , and can then be added to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and support groups can raise this new information after the initial interview , when the case is still being considered , or make it the basis of a fresh claim if the first one is rejected .
These are not examples of gaming the system .
They are about making sure we get the decisions right .
And the stakes in this matter are incredibly high .
If you get them wrong , people die .
They are sent back to the hell which they have escaped .
The refugee convention developed out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 1939 , the St Louis carried 900 Jewish passengers from Europe to Cuba , then Miami , then Canada .
Each one turned them down .
So it sailed back to Nazi Germany , where a third of those on board were murdered in the Holocaust .
That was the shameful memory that energised the post-war refugee system .
It created a simple moral principle : Never again .
Now there is a new moral principle guiding those in charge : Own the libs .
This is what motivates government action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which policy is directed .
And those sacrificed in its name are just the casualties of the absolute requirement that it be fulfilled .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk .
His new book , How To Be A Liberal , is out later this year .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

It was a telling phrase. Priti Patel is planning to bring in new legislation to stop refugees staying in Britain this year. According to one MP she spoke to, she said proudly that "the left are going to have a meltdown".
Helpful stuff. Suddenly all the trappings disappeared and you could see the true motivation driving government action. The objective world was not pertinent. The concept of problems emerging and being addressed was irrelevant. The real issue was the culture war – the appeal to divisive wedge issues, to governing on behalf of one tribal group against another.
Angering the left evidently isn't some charming side-effect of her legislation, or proof that she is pursuing a successful course. It is the purpose of the legislation. This sounds deranged, a government operating according to the pleasure it derives from upsetting its opponents. But in fact it is an increasingly common way of conducting politics.
That, after all, is what we see online when someone proudly proclaims that they've been 'blocked by X' – the celebration of having upset those who think differently. That's the emotional undercurrent to the manner in which so much debate is conducted online, trying to frame statements in the way that will most provoke the other side, gaining a kind of succour from their offence.
This is the blood-circulation of tribalism, the way it rots the brain, making your sense of the world dependent on the reactions of those like you and unlike you, rather than the empirical reality of it. Ironically it entails a kind of slavery, where your own sense of who you are and what you want is defined in the negative by your opponents. It is now, and has been for some time, the operating manual of British government. Patel's response to the made-up refugee crisis is an example of it.
We can glean a couple of likely proposals in Patel's planned legislation from the news report on her chat with Tory MPs. "She talked about how the asylum system is broken, is exploited by leftie Labour-supporting lawyers who are sending us legal letters every day to try to stop us removing people from this country," one told the Times.
It's true the asylum system is broken. The Home Office takes months – and sometimes years – to process claims, leaving people in a state of half life, subsisting on about £5 a day, unable to work, unable to socialise, unable to provide for their children beyond mere sustenance. But that is not the kind of broken Patel is talking about. She is targeting the legal rights for asylum seekers. It seems likely that the home secretary plans to limit appeal rights and block new information being brought to asylum cases after interview.
The "leftie Labour-supporting lawyers" she despises so much are, in reality, guardians of the legal rights of the most vulnerable and marginalised people in our society. How they vote is irrelevant. Patel has no knowledge of it, although her assumption that anyone who opposes her must be in league with the opposition speaks volumes.
The people they protect are thrust into a system that is insanely complicated and impenetrable, even to someone who grew up here and had English as their first language.
In many cases there is no written guidance about the conditions they have faced at home. This was the situation, for instance, with certain ethnic groups in Afghanistan. The Home Office stated simply that Kabul was safe. In fact, if you were a member of certain ethnic groups, it was not. Lawyers, advisers and charities therefore often commission expert guidance themselves and submit it, either in the initial application phase or in the court. This is the kind of new information used to make a claim fair. But it gets in the way of removals, so it seems a likely target for Patel's coming legislation.
There are other ways in which providing new information is crucial. Women who experience sexual violence are often reticent about mentioning it, especially to someone they've never met in a clinical processing centre in Croydon, and this reticence means that valid claims are rejected. Often it has to be coaxed out of them by more sympathetic figures, and can then be added to the application.
As things stand, lawyers and support groups can raise this new information after the initial interview, when the case is still being considered, or make it the basis of a fresh claim if the first one is rejected. These are not examples of gaming the system. They are about making sure we get the decisions right. And the stakes in this matter are incredibly high. If you get them wrong, people die. They are sent back to the hell which they have escaped.
The refugee convention developed out of a terrible memory of the war. In 1939, the St Louis carried 900 Jewish passengers from Europe to Cuba, then Miami, then Canada. Each one turned them down. So it sailed back to Nazi Germany, where a third of those on board were murdered in the Holocaust. That was the shameful memory that energised the post-war refugee system. It created a simple moral principle: Never again.
Now there is a new moral principle guiding those in charge: Own the libs. This is what motivates government action. That is the shining light towards which policy is directed. And those sacrificed in its name are just the casualties of the absolute requirement that it be fulfilled.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out later this year.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-08-17--The covid-penalty: Brits married to immigrants face separation under brutal Home Office rules

One of the reasons the British economy is n't bouncing back is because everyone 's skint .
Even now the Sunak discount has come in , most people do n't think it 's worth catching a deadly virus for a breaded mushroom .
One of the only bright spots in this whole period is that we can spend more time with our families .
But imagine if your ability to live with your family was threatened by the fact that you 're skint .
It 's the worst of all words - and that 's exactly the prospect facing thousands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ married to a non-EU partner .
In November 2017 my spouse 's visa application was rejected by the UK Home Office .
In the refusal , they wrote that they saw no `` insurmountable obstacles '' to us moving to her native China , a country I had at that time never been to .
We challenged the decision and , after a year-long legal fight , won on appeal .
Life continued .
She had been refused the right to live here with me because I , as her sponsor , had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This stipulates that the applicant 's British partner must earn at least £18,600 per year .
The application is based solely on the earnings of the British partner - the income of the non-EU citizen does not count .
Those with kids have to earn even more .
Those successfully granted a visa – after also forking out around £3,000 just to apply – have to apply again after 2.5 years .
It is difficult to meet this requirement in normal times .
And these are not normal times .
I was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
My spouse , now an estate agent , was furloughed .
Her visa is due for renewal in March 2021 – but we 're left wondering how on Earth we will meet the income requirement to be able to stay together .
It feels like we are now one redundancy away from rejection of a visa extension .
There are thousands of mixed-nationality couples in this situation or worse .
We 're left pondering an uncertain future , worried like everyone else about our health , but also driven to distraction by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are n't able to meet the income requirement .
People in the UK on a spousal visa are further punished by having no recourse to public funds , meaning they are barred from getting any state support at a time when we all need it most .
Indeed , the DWP took time out of its busy schedule to inform my spouse of this fact by post , despite the fact that she had n't even tried to get any state support .
The prime minister himself recently seemed surprised to learn of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rare cruelty to ruin people 's lives and not even bother yourself to familiarise yourself as to how you are doing so .
In truth , the income benchmark is a relic of another political age .
It presumed a greater degree of stability and prosperity than the pre-covid labour market could provide .
Fifty-five per cent of British women , for example , already did n't meet the threshold , even before the pandemic took hold .
The Home Office recently announced that loss of earnings caused by the pandemic would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the benchmark .
But this concession came to an abrupt end on July 31st .
Presumably they imagine that everyone 's income has bounced back to pre-covid levels , thanks to eat-out-to-help-out .
But jobs will be lost owing to this crisis for years , even decades , to come .
So mixed-nationality families are facing the double whammy of having less state support from the government and then having to prove their financial viability to said state in order to be together at all .
Despite all this , the Home Office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expanding the income benchmark to the EU spouses of British nationals after Brexit .
This will bring many thousands more into the system .
People who fall victim to this law are n't asking for anything outrageous .
We just want to join or remain with our families , and to have the security of knowing we can do so at a time of high uncertainty .
Dropping it would be , just like scrapping the NHS surcharge for healthcare workers , the kind of decision that would enormously benefit a small subsection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to anybody else .
Or we can persist with a system which bases the right to a family life on individual financial performance during a pandemic .
I do n't know about you , but I haven ’ t been feeling at my most lucrative lately .
With the possible exception of Jeff Bezos , nobody has .
James Harris is a writer and comedian from Nottingham .
You can follow him on Twitter here .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or its owners .

By James Harris
One of the reasons the British economy isn't bouncing back is because everyone's skint. Even now the Sunak discount has come in, most people don't think it's worth catching a deadly virus for a breaded mushroom.
One of the only bright spots in this whole period is that we can spend more time with our families. But imagine if your ability to live with your family was threatened by the fact that you're skint. It's the worst of all words – and that's exactly the prospect facing thousands of couples where a British citizen is married to a non-EU partner.
In November 2017 my spouse's visa application was rejected by the UK Home Office. In the refusal, they wrote that they saw no "insurmountable obstacles" to us moving to her native China, a country I had at that time never been to. We challenged the decision and, after a year-long legal fight, won on appeal. Life continued.
She had been refused the right to live here with me because I, as her sponsor, had failed to meet the minimum income requirement. This stipulates that the applicant's British partner must earn at least £18,600 per year. The application is based solely on the earnings of the British partner – the income of the non-EU citizen does not count. Those with kids have to earn even more. Those successfully granted a visa – after also forking out around £3,000 just to apply – have to apply again after 2.5 years.
It is difficult to meet this requirement in normal times. And these are not normal times.
I was made redundant at the beginning of April. My spouse, now an estate agent, was furloughed. Her visa is due for renewal in March 2021 – but we're left wondering how on Earth we will meet the income requirement to be able to stay together. It feels like we are now one redundancy away from rejection of a visa extension.
There are thousands of mixed-nationality couples in this situation or worse. We're left pondering an uncertain future, worried like everyone else about our health, but also driven to distraction by thoughts of what might happen if we aren't able to meet the income requirement.
People in the UK on a spousal visa are further punished by having no recourse to public funds, meaning they are barred from getting any state support at a time when we all need it most. Indeed, the DWP took time out of its busy schedule to inform my spouse of this fact by post, despite the fact that she hadn't even tried to get any state support. The prime minister himself recently seemed surprised to learn of this state of affairs. It is a rare cruelty to ruin people's lives and not even bother yourself to familiarise yourself as to how you are doing so.
In truth, the income benchmark is a relic of another political age. It presumed a greater degree of stability and prosperity than the pre-covid labour market could provide. Fifty-five per cent of British women, for example, already didn't meet the threshold, even before the pandemic took hold.
The Home Office recently announced that loss of earnings caused by the pandemic would be discounted for people needing to meet the benchmark. But this concession came to an abrupt end on July 31st. Presumably they imagine that everyone's income has bounced back to pre-covid levels, thanks to eat-out-to-help-out. But jobs will be lost owing to this crisis for years, even decades, to come. So mixed-nationality families are facing the double whammy of having less state support from the government and then having to prove their financial viability to said state in order to be together at all.
Despite all this, the Home Office has chosen this moment to commit to expanding the income benchmark to the EU spouses of British nationals after Brexit. This will bring many thousands more into the system.
People who fall victim to this law aren't asking for anything outrageous. We just want to join or remain with our families, and to have the security of knowing we can do so at a time of high uncertainty. Dropping it would be, just like scrapping the NHS surcharge for healthcare workers, the kind of decision that would enormously benefit a small subsection of people and make absolutely no difference to anybody else.
Or we can persist with a system which bases the right to a family life on individual financial performance during a pandemic. I don't know about you, but I haven’t been feeling at my most lucrative lately. With the possible exception of Jeff Bezos, nobody has.
James Harris is a writer and comedian from Nottingham. You can follow him on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-08-18--Growing UK solidarity movement backs 'Polish Stonewall'

Curling up towards Regent 's Park , the wide thoroughfare of Portland Place in Marylebone – a street hemmed in by stylish terraced houses , bedecked in various flags – is an international corner of central London .
Among many other embassies and institutions , number 47 , towards the northern end of the street , is the Polish Embassy , four-storeys of fashionable black and white brick .
Attached to the front are Polish and EU flags , which project out into the street .
On Saturday , beneath those flags , you could also see a rainbow , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the building 's elegant chequered entrance onto the pavement .
It was there that around a hundred people gathered to protest against the recent detention of an LGBTQ rights activist , amid an escalation of homophobia in Poland .
The activist , Margot Szutowicz , was taken into custody in Poland for two months , accused of hanging rainbow flags on monuments in Warsaw and damaging an anti-abortion campaigner 's van .
`` We want to show all the people who are brave enough in Poland to go out and protest and risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' says Robert Kocur , who was one of the organisers of Saturday ’ s protest – along with Polish Rainbow in the UK , the first Polish LGBTQ group in the country .
They were joined by Marek Ciechanowski , who organised a separate protest at the embassy .
The demonstrations were held at the same time as several other protests across the UK , from Manchester to Newcastle , as Poles in the UK spoke out against increasing homophobia in Poland .
Poland is now a dangerous place for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years , ruling party Law and Justice ( PiS ) have clamped down on what they call an `` LGBT ideology '' , claiming it opposes Polish values and tradition .
Incumbent President Andrzej Duda , a PiS ally , made anti-LGBTQ rhetoric a centrepiece of his election bid in the recent presidential race , suggesting it was worse than communism and unveiling homophobic election pledges .
Homophobia is on the streets too , with pride marches attacked and rainbow sculptures vandalised .
In the last year , as many as 97 municipalities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Poland have declared themselves `` free from LGBT ideology '' or adopted family rights charters - prompting several European towns to sever their twin town arrangements with these municipalities , citing human rights violations .
In May , Poland was ranked by ILGA Europe as the worst country in the EU for LGBTQ rights , with attacks from the government and church particularly blamed for increasing discrimination .
Earlier this month , the situation took an even more worrying turn .
Three activists were detained , accused of offending religious feeling and insulting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statues in Warsaw – including , most controversially , a statue of Christ .
Days later , Margot , from the organisation Stop Bzdurom , was given a two-month temporary arrest sentence , charged with vandalising a van belonging to an anti-abortion campaigner back in June .
She now faces up to five years in prison .
Thousands have since protested against her arrest , both in Poland and across the world .
On Friday August 7th , demonstrators in Warsaw surrounded a police van taking Margot to a station .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrested .
The incident has been dubbed the 'Polish Stonewall ' .
The UK-based protests may only be in the hundreds for now , but organisers believe they reflect a powerful show of support for those in Poland .
One organiser is the London-based Robert Kocur , a 29 year old who works at METRO Charity , coordinating workshops about sexual health in the Polish language .
He is a founder of SLAV 4 U , the first ever Polish Drag Show in the UK , which showcases Polish pop culture with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situation in Poland regarding the LGBT+ community , me and my friends decided that we ca n't stay still and need to show our support in a form of protest , '' he says .
`` The first one we 've organised was very symbolic and gathered around 15 people .
It was our protest against the homophobic words that our president said in public : 'LGBT are not people , it 's an ideology ' .
Those dehumanising words reminded us of how , back in the day , people were dehumanising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
Kocur says that since he moved to the UK over six years ago , he 's seen the situation for the LGBTQ community in Poland deteriorate .
But , as reports of hostility in Poland have increased , so has the number of protestors at the embassy .
`` Now it 's also about our visibility , '' Kocur says .
`` We are sending a clear message to Polish politicians that our community is ready to fight for our rights . ''
Other UK-based LGBTQ organisations are also getting behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alarmed by what 's happening to LGBT people in Poland and we stand in solidarity with them as they face continuing violence and hate , '' Leanne MacMillan , director of Global Programmes at Stonewall , says .
`` The global LGBT community owe it to the brave activists on the ground in Poland to come together , show visible support for them and work towards a solution to this appalling situation . ''
On Saturday , a separately-organised protest at the embassy was held by Marek Ciechanowski , who is British-born with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first time he had organised a solidarity protest for the Polish LGBTQ community , and wanted to '' show support '' for LGBTQ friends in Poland .
`` I think it 's a very important time to let the world know about the worrying changes that are happening in Poland right now , '' he says .
`` When a president and leading government encourage homophobia by suggesting LGBTQ people are not human , it 's time for everyone to take action and protect the lives of minority groups before it 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Madga Oldziejewska , from Polish Rainbow in the UK , also thinks the British public need to be more aware of growing discrimination .
`` I don ’ t think there is a lot of awareness in the general society about what is going on , '' she says .
`` It 's not just happening in Poland .
The wave of hate and the move towards the far-right is something we 're seeing internationally . ''
Nevertheless , Oldziejewska says that around 100 people turned up on Saturday to what she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ although there was also a small group of counter-demonstrators .
`` There were only a few of them but they managed to cause quite a scene – calling us names like fascists – which is ironic , to say the least . ''
Kocur says he thinks UK protests could have a real impact on the struggle in Poland .
`` I truly believe that our protests in the UK have positive impact on the situation of the LGBT+ community in Poland , '' he says .
`` I would certainly feel empowered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrest by knowing that the Polish diaspora is backing me up and sending a message of support .
At the end of the day those people are the true fighters that are changing the Polish history .
They need our help . ''
Oldziejewska agrees .
She 's hopeful Saturday 's protests are part of a bigger growing movement .
`` The events of last week are so stark , '' she says .
`` They show how far we 've gone . ''
Juliette Bretan is a freelance journalist covering Polish and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Her work has featured in CityMetric , The Independent , Euronews , Ozy and New Eastern Europe .
You can follow her on Twitter here .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Juliette Bretan
Curling up towards Regent's Park, the wide thoroughfare of Portland Place in Marylebone – a street hemmed in by stylish terraced houses, bedecked in various flags – is an international corner of central London. Among many other embassies and institutions, number 47, towards the northern end of the street, is the Polish Embassy, four-storeys of fashionable black and white brick. Attached to the front are Polish and EU flags, which project out into the street.
On Saturday, beneath those flags, you could also see a rainbow, drawn in chalk, spilling out from the building's elegant chequered entrance onto the pavement. It was there that around a hundred people gathered to protest against the recent detention of an LGBTQ rights activist, amid an escalation of homophobia in Poland.
The activist, Margot Szutowicz, was taken into custody in Poland for two months, accused of hanging rainbow flags on monuments in Warsaw and damaging an anti-abortion campaigner's van.
"We want to show all the people who are brave enough in Poland to go out and protest and risk being arrested that we are with them," says Robert Kocur, who was one of the organisers of Saturday’s protest – along with Polish Rainbow in the UK, the first Polish LGBTQ group in the country. They were joined by Marek Ciechanowski, who organised a separate protest at the embassy. The demonstrations were held at the same time as several other protests across the UK, from Manchester to Newcastle, as Poles in the UK spoke out against increasing homophobia in Poland.
Poland is now a dangerous place for the LGBTQ community. Over the last two years, ruling party Law and Justice (PiS) have clamped down on what they call an "LGBT ideology", claiming it opposes Polish values and tradition. Incumbent President Andrzej Duda, a PiS ally, made anti-LGBTQ rhetoric a centrepiece of his election bid in the recent presidential race, suggesting it was worse than communism and unveiling homophobic election pledges.
Homophobia is on the streets too, with pride marches attacked and rainbow sculptures vandalised. In the last year, as many as 97 municipalities across an area spanning a third of Poland have declared themselves "free from LGBT ideology" or adopted family rights charters – prompting several European towns to sever their twin town arrangements with these municipalities, citing human rights violations.
In May, Poland was ranked by ILGA Europe as the worst country in the EU for LGBTQ rights, with attacks from the government and church particularly blamed for increasing discrimination.
Earlier this month, the situation took an even more worrying turn. Three activists were detained, accused of offending religious feeling and insulting monuments, after rainbow flags appeared on statues in Warsaw – including, most controversially, a statue of Christ. Days later, Margot, from the organisation Stop Bzdurom, was given a two-month temporary arrest sentence, charged with vandalising a van belonging to an anti-abortion campaigner back in June. She now faces up to five years in prison.
Thousands have since protested against her arrest, both in Poland and across the world. On Friday August 7th, demonstrators in Warsaw surrounded a police van taking Margot to a station. In the ensuing scuffle, 48 others were also arrested. The incident has been dubbed the 'Polish Stonewall'.
The UK-based protests may only be in the hundreds for now, but organisers believe they reflect a powerful show of support for those in Poland.
One organiser is the London-based Robert Kocur, a 29 year old who works at METRO Charity, coordinating workshops about sexual health in the Polish language. He is a founder of SLAV 4 U, the first ever Polish Drag Show in the UK, which showcases Polish pop culture with a queer twist.
"After the alarming situation in Poland regarding the LGBT+ community, me and my friends decided that we can't stay still and need to show our support in a form of protest," he says. "The first one we've organised was very symbolic and gathered around 15 people. It was our protest against the homophobic words that our president said in public: 'LGBT are not people, it's an ideology'. Those dehumanising words reminded us of how, back in the day, people were dehumanising Jews… and we know what happened later."
Kocur says that since he moved to the UK over six years ago, he's seen the situation for the LGBTQ community in Poland deteriorate. But, as reports of hostility in Poland have increased, so has the number of protestors at the embassy.
"Now it's also about our visibility," Kocur says. "We are sending a clear message to Polish politicians that our community is ready to fight for our rights."
Other UK-based LGBTQ organisations are also getting behind the campaign. "We are extremely alarmed by what's happening to LGBT people in Poland and we stand in solidarity with them as they face continuing violence and hate," Leanne MacMillan, director of Global Programmes at Stonewall, says. "The global LGBT community owe it to the brave activists on the ground in Poland to come together, show visible support for them and work towards a solution to this appalling situation."
On Saturday, a separately-organised protest at the embassy was held by Marek Ciechanowski, who is British-born with Polish parents. He said this was the first time he had organised a solidarity protest for the Polish LGBTQ community, and wanted to"show support" for LGBTQ friends in Poland.
"I think it's a very important time to let the world know about the worrying changes that are happening in Poland right now," he says. "When a president and leading government encourage homophobia by suggesting LGBTQ people are not human, it's time for everyone to take action and protect the lives of minority groups before it's too late and history repeats itself."
Madga Oldziejewska, from Polish Rainbow in the UK, also thinks the British public need to be more aware of growing discrimination. "I don’t think there is a lot of awareness in the general society about what is going on," she says. "It's not just happening in Poland. The wave of hate and the move towards the far-right is something we're seeing internationally."
Nevertheless, Oldziejewska says that around 100 people turned up on Saturday to what she calls an "amazing" protest, although there was also a small group of counter-demonstrators. "There were only a few of them but they managed to cause quite a scene – calling us names like fascists – which is ironic, to say the least."
Kocur says he thinks UK protests could have a real impact on the struggle in Poland. "I truly believe that our protests in the UK have positive impact on the situation of the LGBT+ community in Poland," he says. "I would certainly feel empowered if I would be sitting in Polish arrest by knowing that the Polish diaspora is backing me up and sending a message of support. At the end of the day those people are the true fighters that are changing the Polish history. They need our help."
Oldziejewska agrees. She's hopeful Saturday's protests are part of a bigger growing movement. "The events of last week are so stark," she says. "They show how far we've gone."
Juliette Bretan is a freelance journalist covering Polish and Eastern European current affairs and culture. Her work has featured in CityMetric, The Independent, Euronews, Ozy and New Eastern Europe. You can follow her on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-08-19--The free-school meals loophole: Government policy leaves low-income children stranded

In recent weeks , campaigners have forced government U-turns to secure food and educational outcomes for children from low-income families .
The Summer Food Fund was set up so that they could continue to receive free school meals over the summer holiday period .
As of this week , A-Level and GCSE results will not be decided using a biased algorithm , but instead better reflect each student 's hard work .
These were hugely important victories for working class children that were won after public outcry .
But they leave me wondering why the government has not taken similarly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are excluded from free school meals because of their immigration status .
Before covid , children from families with no recourse to public funds ( NRPF ) were unable to access government funded free school meals after year two , despite being vulnerable to the most extreme poverty in society .
Last Friday , the Children 's Society sent a letter signed by 60 organisations to education secretary Gavin Williamson calling for an immediate and permanent extension of free school meals to all low income families with NRPF .
NRPF is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that excludes them from mainstream welfare benefits , regardless of their level of need .
It 's a huge issue in terms of the number of people that it affects and the harm that it can lead to .
There are an estimated 215,000 undocumented children growing up in the UK , who fall into NRPF by default , and over 175,000 children with NRPF on their visa .
Most are black or from ethnic minorities .
Low income families with NRPF are often one crisis away from a level of poverty that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the UK .
When children from families with NRPF are n't eligible for free school meals , they suffer , their families suffer and even their schools suffer .
Government guidance states that `` the pupil premium grant is designed to allow schools to help disadvantaged pupils by improving their progress and the exam results they achieve '' .
But the pupil premium is based on free school meals take-up , so schools serving low-income migrant communities also miss out on a significant source of funding .
Structural racism begins early .
North @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to disconnect free school meals from immigration status since 2018 , alongside Citizens UK , the Food Foundation and Liberty .
However , it took legal action to temporarily extend free school meals to some low income families with NRPF in April this year .
While the temporary extension acknowledges the poverty that many children from families with NRPF experience , the Department for Education still intends for it to end .
The implication of an exclusionary free school meals system is clear .
Some lives matter more than others .
It does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The government has shown it is willing to U-turn in the face of public pressure .
If enough people call for change , it will do the same here .
Nadia Chalabi is Hackney Migrant Centre 's free school meals advocate and author of Children with No Recourse to Public Funds : The need for free school meals .
The opinions in politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Nadia Chalabi
In recent weeks, campaigners have forced government U-turns to secure food and educational outcomes for children from low-income families. The Summer Food Fund was set up so that they could continue to receive free school meals over the summer holiday period. As of this week, A-Level and GCSE results will not be decided using a biased algorithm, but instead better reflect each student's hard work.
These were hugely important victories for working class children that were won after public outcry. But they leave me wondering why the government has not taken similarly swift action to protect the destitute students who are excluded from free school meals because of their immigration status.
Before covid, children from families with no recourse to public funds (NRPF) were unable to access government funded free school meals after year two, despite being vulnerable to the most extreme poverty in society. Last Friday, the Children's Society sent a letter signed by 60 organisations to education secretary Gavin Williamson calling for an immediate and permanent extension of free school meals to all low income families with NRPF.
NRPF is a restriction attached to people's immigration status that excludes them from mainstream welfare benefits, regardless of their level of need. It's a huge issue in terms of the number of people that it affects and the harm that it can lead to. There are an estimated 215,000 undocumented children growing up in the UK, who fall into NRPF by default, and over 175,000 children with NRPF on their visa. Most are black or from ethnic minorities. Low income families with NRPF are often one crisis away from a level of poverty that most people can't imagine existing in the UK.
When children from families with NRPF aren't eligible for free school meals, they suffer, their families suffer and even their schools suffer.
Government guidance states that "the pupil premium grant is designed to allow schools to help disadvantaged pupils by improving their progress and the exam results they achieve". But the pupil premium is based on free school meals take-up, so schools serving low-income migrant communities also miss out on a significant source of funding. Structural racism begins early.
North East London Migrant Action has been campaigning to disconnect free school meals from immigration status since 2018, alongside Citizens UK, the Food Foundation and Liberty. However, it took legal action to temporarily extend free school meals to some low income families with NRPF in April this year. While the temporary extension acknowledges the poverty that many children from families with NRPF experience, the Department for Education still intends for it to end. The implication of an exclusionary free school meals system is clear. Some lives matter more than others.
It doesn't have to be this way. The government has shown it is willing to U-turn in the face of public pressure. If enough people call for change, it will do the same here.
Nadia Chalabi is Hackney Migrant Centre's free school meals advocate and author of Children with No Recourse to Public Funds: The need for free school meals.
The opinions in politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-08-20--Virtual battle in Belarus as VPN become crucial weapon against dictatorship

Totalitarian governments understand the power of the internet for cultivating dissenting opinions and providing the opportunity for citizens to orchestrate protests against the state .
In recent years , elections in places as diverse as Uganda , Kenya , Bahrain , Cameroon , Egypt , Ethiopia , India , Iraq , Morocco , Saudi Arabia , and Ukraine have been marred by internet blackouts , website censorship , and the blocking of social media and messenger services .
In total , around 30 countries have experienced internet restrictions due to the unrest caused by controversial or downright rigged elections .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ oppressive regimes is to prevent an upsurge of dissenting opinions and stop citizens from being able to successfully mobilise demonstrations and political opposition .
Belarus is the latest country suffering at the hands of government-imposed blackouts .
On August 9th , following an exit poll in which it became clear that President Lukashenko would successfully retain the presidency , the government decided to engage in internet blackouts across the country .
For around 61 hours , large-scale blackouts caused social networks , instant messengers and search engines to become nearly completely inaccessible .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been caused by a cyberattack originating from outside of the country .
Despite these implausible claims , however , most experts agree that the timing of the blackouts indicates government involvement .
Even before the exit poll was released , citizens across Belarus had been engaging in protests .
Citizens were well aware of the likelihood that Lukashenko would once again fix the presidential election .
And in the month running up to the vote , large numbers of activists and journalists were actively rounded up and jailed to prevent them from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feeling against Lukashenko at boiling point - and citizens already protesting even in advance of the election results - the government must have been aware that it was going to face unprecedented levels of backlash .
The timing of the internet blackout , which was set to occur alongside the results of the exit poll , suggests premeditation .
Throughout Belarus , the reaction to the government-enforced backouts has been one of shock .
Leading proponents from Belarus ' IT sector , including 300 Belarusian tech developers , executives , and investors have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conditions caused by the blackouts were highly damaging to the tech sector and that the continuation of ongoing police violence would cause it to flee abroad .
Early estimates from activists have claimed that the disruption to the nation 's infrastructure , including digital banking and online shopping , has already caused losses of around $ 56m per day .
The chaos caused by the coordinated internet blackouts reveals that Lukashenko is desperately scrambling to retain his stranglehold over the nation .
Despite his claims on Monday that he would be willing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following a constitutional referendum , most observers agree that in reality the president will not do so without a fight .
Unfortunately for Lukashenko , the internet restrictions have not been enough to discourage the widespread demonstrations happening across Belarus .
Ten days since they began , the protests are still going strong and have even begun attracting the support of groups and enterprises traditionally supportive of Lukashenko .
Russia has stated that it would be willing to offer military support if necessary , but there is a growing feeling that the protests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's regime - meaning that even Putin ’ s support may now dwindle in favour of other options .
The fear of further internet restrictions is causing mass gravitation towards virtual private network ( VPN ) services .
Leading VPN provider , Hide.me , has noticed an 84 % increase in citizens accessing its VPN in Belarusand there are similar reports of VPN downloads skyrocketing from other providers .
The rush for VPNs , which citizens can use to bypass localised internet restrictions and website blocks , reveals that internet users are ramping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government-imposed blackouts .
They understand that the internet is a vital tool , not only for communicating and escaping the information vacuum but also for evading violent police .
VPNs are a pragmatic tool that give citizens the opportunity to bypass internet service provider ( ISP ) enforced internet blackouts .
They also permit them to access information critical of the government without being tracked and monitored .
This is critical considering Lukashenko 's willingness to incarcerate dissenters .
However , it is worth noting that a VPN can only help in cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It will not provide relief if Lukashenko decides to completely pull the plug on the internet .
With that in mind , Belarus could be approaching increasingly concerning conditions .
The only real question now is just how far Lukashenko is willing to go to retain his control .
Ray Walsh is a Digital Privacy Expert at ProPrivacy .
You can follow the group on Twitter here .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website @ @ @ @

By Ray Walsh
Totalitarian governments understand the power of the internet for cultivating dissenting opinions and providing the opportunity for citizens to orchestrate protests against the state. In recent years, elections in places as diverse as Uganda, Kenya, Bahrain, Cameroon, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Iraq, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and Ukraine have been marred by internet blackouts, website censorship, and the blocking of social media and messenger services.
In total, around 30 countries have experienced internet restrictions due to the unrest caused by controversial or downright rigged elections. The aim of the game for those oppressive regimes is to prevent an upsurge of dissenting opinions and stop citizens from being able to successfully mobilise demonstrations and political opposition.
Belarus is the latest country suffering at the hands of government-imposed blackouts. On August 9th, following an exit poll in which it became clear that President Lukashenko would successfully retain the presidency, the government decided to engage in internet blackouts across the country.
For around 61 hours, large-scale blackouts caused social networks, instant messengers and search engines to become nearly completely inaccessible. Lukashenko's government claimed that those blackouts had been caused by a cyberattack originating from outside of the country. Despite these implausible claims, however, most experts agree that the timing of the blackouts indicates government involvement.
Even before the exit poll was released, citizens across Belarus had been engaging in protests. Citizens were well aware of the likelihood that Lukashenko would once again fix the presidential election. And in the month running up to the vote, large numbers of activists and journalists were actively rounded up and jailed to prevent them from speaking out.
With the strength of feeling against Lukashenko at boiling point – and citizens already protesting even in advance of the election results – the government must have been aware that it was going to face unprecedented levels of backlash. The timing of the internet blackout, which was set to occur alongside the results of the exit poll, suggests premeditation.
Throughout Belarus, the reaction to the government-enforced backouts has been one of shock. Leading proponents from Belarus' IT sector, including 300 Belarusian tech developers, executives, and investors have signed an open letter stating that the conditions caused by the blackouts were highly damaging to the tech sector and that the continuation of ongoing police violence would cause it to flee abroad. Early estimates from activists have claimed that the disruption to the nation's infrastructure, including digital banking and online shopping, has already caused losses of around $56m per day.
The chaos caused by the coordinated internet blackouts reveals that Lukashenko is desperately scrambling to retain his stranglehold over the nation. Despite his claims on Monday that he would be willing to call new elections and hand over power following a constitutional referendum, most observers agree that in reality the president will not do so without a fight.
Unfortunately for Lukashenko, the internet restrictions have not been enough to discourage the widespread demonstrations happening across Belarus. Ten days since they began, the protests are still going strong and have even begun attracting the support of groups and enterprises traditionally supportive of Lukashenko.
Russia has stated that it would be willing to offer military support if necessary, but there is a growing feeling that the protests have revealed too much weakness in Lukashenko's regime – meaning that even Putin’s support may now dwindle in favour of other options.
The fear of further internet restrictions is causing mass gravitation towards virtual private network (VPN) services. Leading VPN provider, Hide.me, has noticed an 84% increase in citizens accessing its VPN in Belarusand there are similar reports of VPN downloads skyrocketing from other providers.
The rush for VPNs, which citizens can use to bypass localised internet restrictions and website blocks, reveals that internet users are ramping up their efforts to protect themselves against government-imposed blackouts. They understand that the internet is a vital tool, not only for communicating and escaping the information vacuum but also for evading violent police.
VPNs are a pragmatic tool that give citizens the opportunity to bypass internet service provider (ISP) enforced internet blackouts. They also permit them to access information critical of the government without being tracked and monitored. This is critical considering Lukashenko's willingness to incarcerate dissenters.
However, it is worth noting that a VPN can only help in cases where websites and services are individually restricted. It will not provide relief if Lukashenko decides to completely pull the plug on the internet. With that in mind, Belarus could be approaching increasingly concerning conditions. The only real question now is just how far Lukashenko is willing to go to retain his control.
Ray Walsh is a Digital Privacy Expert at ProPrivacy. You can follow the group on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.