Back to website

Further to my last: Can it be totally denied there is not a parallel between this Civil Contingencies Bill and what Hitler strove for in March 1933?   Is it so very different?  Maybe the Storm Troopers are not visible, but the under-current of Blair wanting FULL Powers is plain as a Pike Staff. Travel Health ID Cards; FULL ID cards; driver's licence with photo; Passports with DNA will be next!
We have had (have) our deep troubles with the IRA and never was a CCB mentioned. Why now; a General election next year, and the shadow of the EU ever darkening our door.
"All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke
Are YOU going to do nothing?
PLEASE check this out.

Hitler's Enabling Act

On March 23, 1933, the newly elected members of the German Parliament (the Reichstag) met in the Kroll Opera House in Berlin to consider passing Hitler's Enabling Act. It was officially called the 'Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich.' If passed, it would effectively mean the end of democracy in Germany and establish the legal dictatorship of Adolf Hitler.

The 'distress' had been secretly caused by the Nazis themselves in order to create a crisis atmosphere that would make the law seem necessary to restore order. On February 27, 1933, they had burned the Reichstag building, seat of the German government, causing panic and outrage. The Nazis successfully blamed the fire on the Communists and claimed it marked the beginning of a widespread uprising.

On the day of the vote, Nazi storm troopers gathered in a show of force around the opera house chanting, "Full powers - or else! We want the bill - or fire and murder!!" They also stood inside in the hallways, and even lined the aisles where the vote would take place, glaring menacingly at anyone who might oppose Hitler's will.

Just before the vote, Hitler made a speech to the Reichstag in which he pledged to use restraint.

"The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures...The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one." - Hitler told the Reichstag.

He also promised an end to unemployment and pledged to promote peace with France, Great Britain and the Soviet Union. But in order to do all this, Hitler said, he first needed the Enabling Act.

A two thirds majority was needed, since the law would actually alter the German constitution. Hitler needed 31 non-Nazi votes to pass it. He got those votes from the Center Party after making a false promise to restore some basic rights already taken away by decree.

However, one man arose amid the overwhelming might. Otto Wells, leader of the Social Democrats stood up and spoke quietly to Hitler.

"We German Social Democrats pledge ourselves solemnly in this historic hour to the principles of humanity and justice, of freedom and socialism. No enabling act can give you power to destroy ideas which are eternal and indestructible."

This enraged Hitler and he jumped up to respond.  "You are no longer needed! - The star of Germany will rise and yours will sink! Your death knell has sounded!"

The vote was taken - 441 for, only 84, the Social Democrats, against. The Nazis leapt to their feet clapping, stamping and shouting, then broke into the Nazi anthem, the Hörst Wessel song.

They achieved what Hitler had wanted for years - to tear down the German Democratic Republic legally and end democracy, thus paving the way for a complete Nazi takeover of Germany.

From this day on, the Reichstag would be just a sounding board, a cheering section for Hitler's pronouncements.

Copyright © 1996 The History Place™ All Rights Reserved  (Reprinted by Permission of The History Place™ )


Subject: Civil Contingencies Bill - the Animal Health Bill for humans; a draconian step towards a Dictatorship

This is a VERY serious matter which requires your action...... PLEASE read through
This Civil Contingencies Bill is nothing more than the Animal Health Bill turned inside out to make innocent humans the new target for New Labour's thirst for total controlling powers.
Lord LUCAS is very alarmed at the concept of the CCB as it stands:
Lord Lucas: "The Government are not averse to gathering enormous powers unto themselves. The draft Civil Contingencies Bill would, in the event of a crisis, have given the Government the power to abolish or tear up legislation and, by ministerial fiat, create any legislation. Perhaps we will see something different when the Bill emerges, but under the draft Bill they would have the power to destroy the constitution -- to abolish judges and Parliament and create a dictatorship...
Lord Lucas, speaking at the second reading of the bill in the House of Lords on 5 July, made this point:
"Are we opening up our system to the equivalent of what happened in Germany in 1933, where it became possible for an extreme party legitimately to hijack a democracy and turn it into something totalitarian? .
The way Blair, Blunkett, Beckett, Prescott, Morley, Whitty act right now, we are already feeling the cold withering wind of a dictatorship!
July 5 2004
Civil Contingencies Bill
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
"The Government recognise that these are significant powers, and that they should not operate in an unfettered way. That is why the Bill contains a much more coherent, transparent and comprehensive package of safeguards than can be found in the 1920 Act. The centrepiece of this is the "triple lock", which ensures that emergency powers will be available only if three conditions are satisfied.
First, it must be the case that an emergency which threatens serious damage to human welfare, the environment or security has occurred, is occurring or is about [the wording is in fact "may cause" - so it is based on a theoretical possibility eg The Contiguous Cull in 2001 was founded on scientific nonsense, yet performed by those 'following orders' ] to occur—that is to say serious and requiring immediate action.
Secondly, it must be necessary to make provision urgently in order to resolve the emergency [wait until you see the definition of an emergency!] as existing powers are insufficient  [ where have we heard that statement before!  FMD 2001 ] and it is not possible to bring forward a Bill in the usual way because of the need to act urgently. [we all remember the indecent haste the AHB was enacted]
Thirdly, emergency regulations must be in due proportion to the aspect or effect of the emergency they are directed at. [they do not know the meaning of due proportion!]

They cannot alter any aspects of criminal procedures or create any new offence other than breach of the regulations themselves." [anyone with knowledge of the AHB will draw parallels with this Bill; nobody is allowed to protest against the force of suspect actions by a corrupt government - they will be arrested and thrown in jail]

The purpose of this email is to protest in the strongest fashion against the present construction of this proposed Civil Contingencies Bill and to ask readers to consider writing their own objections and posting them to their MP and/or Peer.
I do NOT like the construction, nor the intent of this Bill, as it invades Human Rights in an insidious and unwelcome manner.
I outline my reasons for protesting against the Bill, as it is nothing more than the Animal Health Bill adapted for humans, under the very slack pretext of an "emergency"!   
Please do all you can to dilute the enormous powers contained in this draconian New Labour induced grab for more power over your lives. This Bill seeks control far in excess of democratic principles, or the lawful need process.
Arguments against this CCB
"We now have a definition which we believe to be right. The Bill defines an emergency as an event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare, the environment or national security."  That is what the Labour puppet in the Lord's wants you to believe - it is gold-plated tripe.
That is NOT what the Bill defines an "emergency" as!
Ref :

(1) In this Part “emergency” means an event or situation which threatens serious damage to—

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) an event or situation threatens ["serious" is missed out!!!] damage to human welfare only if it involves, causes or may cause

(a) loss of human life,

(b) human illness or injury,

(c) homelessness,

(d) damage to property,

(e) disruption of a supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel,

(f) disruption of an electronic or other system of communication,

(g) disruption of facilities for transport, or

(h) disruption of services relating to health.

Note the word "serious" is now left out, and it becomes only "damage"! 
This is really kindergarten legislation with holes in it. The definition is plainly far too wide to activate such a powerful Bill (in effect a National State of Emergency) as they cover everyday occurrences that can be adequately dealt with by common sense and existing local emergency plans - Boscastle is an epic example.
Looking at, (3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) an event or situation threatens damage to the environment only if it involves, causes or may cause

(c) disruption or destruction of plant life or animal life.

Are we seriously considering throwing the full force of our abilities to deal with an emergency into something that "may cause" or "threatens" mere damage to plants!   This is a ludicrously stupid thing to encapsulate as an Emergency Plan.  A herd of cows can cause damage to another farmers field if the gate is left open by a rambler - but it is NOT an emergency.

I do not like the 'rider' given here: (6) The event or situation mentioned in subsection (1) may occur or be inside or outside the United Kingdom. 

Why are we considering what happens outside the UK?  This another small buried step to acclimatise and desensitise the UK population to the further insidious encroachment of the EU ethos and laws into our national legislation? That paragraph should be deleted in toto.

Meaning of “emergency” : I consider this is far too sweeping and broad brush as it embraces everyday life. 
A national "emergency" should be defined within the gravity of another Lockerbie or an event that parallels 9/11.
The Boscastle flooding is an "emergency" which was adequately dealt with without the need for or reference to this CCB, and is a case in point; not the paltry excuse/definition that something, "may cause" such pathetic instances of (b) human illness or injury!  That is a motorway crash or a Friday night brawl outside a pub.  That is not an adequate cause to roll out a Civil Contingencies Bill under the banner of a National Emergency.
I cannot believe that County Cllrs in Devon agree with the proposed definition of "emergency"!  They are not alone I'm afraid - other fools are in our midst.
Memorandum from Devon County Council

Q1.   Is the definition of emergency the right one? If not, in what ways should it be tightened or expanded to exclude certain classes of event or situation?



The Bill wishes all Category 1 responders to plan to prevent an emergency!  How utterly stupid.

(i) preventing the emergency,  well there is the planners dream.  Draw up plans that prevent an emergency! This is a real world, and plans do not and cannot cover such fantasy. Take Lockerbie, Staines or Marchioness.

The best plans are always simple, whether planning a wedding or reacting to a rail crash/motorway pile up or a ferry sinking due to bow doors being left open.  This Bill is littered with incomprehensible garbage such as:

(d) require a person or body to consult a specified person or body or class of person or body before or in the course of performing a duty under subsection (1).  

I thought there was a movement afoot for the adoption of plain and simple English? No Crystal Mark for this written draft of verbose drizzle.

How does any average Category 2 responder deal with this? (i) require a person or body listed in Part 1 or 3 of Schedule 1 to provide information, either on request or in other specified circumstances, to a person or body listed in Part 1 of the Schedule in connection with the performance of a duty under subsection (1);


There is always a price to pay in an emergency, but should Central Government ask for money from local government for emergency advice?   I think not.

(5) Regulations by virtue of subsection (4)(a) must provide that a charge for advice or assistance may not exceed the aggregate of — (a) the direct costs of providing the advice or assistance, and (b) a reasonable share of any costs indirectly related to the provision of the advice or assistance.

Another New Labour hidden tax.  How many is that, 67?

(3) A person or body shall comply with an order under this section.  So it could transpire that a group of ramblers are prevented from walking over rough heather towards a group of badgers with TB?  Perhaps 407,791 persons walking across a grouse moor constitutes an emergency as they may cause "damage to property" as it is covered by New Labour: (3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) an event or situation threatens damage to the environment only if it involves, causes or may cause (c) disruption or destruction of plant life or animal life.

10.  Paragraph 2(3)(h) requires information which is probably protected under the Data Protection Act. Not something to be given up lightly if at all!  The Data Protection Act is there to protect public and private interests, so can be ruled out in any Emergency Planning.


Royal Proclamation

15. The declaration of an emergency should remain entirely with her Majesty (Paragraph 18) and not with a Secretary of State who will be motivated by political pressures and related reasons (Paragraph 19).

I find it astounding Devon CC once again, are ready to hand over such a power to some political puppet!

Q16.   Do you agree that in the event the process of making a Royal Proclamation would cause a delay which might result in significant damage or harm, a Secretary of State should be able to make the declaration in the place of The Queen as Head of State, acting on the advice of Ministers? If not, is delay acceptable or is there another alternative mechanism?



Power to make emergency regulations

17. Paras 20(1)(b) and (2)(b) should not be entertained and should be deleted. The Draconian powers envisaged will lead to civil unrest as nearly happened in Cumbria during FMD 2001. This paragraph seems to reflect on bad memories of FMD 2001 and have now been based on the Government's lamentable experiences during FMD 2001, where illegal actions by government were patched over by the Animal Health Bill and now this CCB seems to be the illegitimate offspring of poor, pathetic, central edicts.

Scope of Regulations

18. Paragraph 21(3). All references to, "without compensation" should be deleted; it seems as if no lessons have been learned from Foot & Mouth disaster 2001.  A government cannot exterminate property or animals with compensating the owners. Huge governmental mistakes were made in 2001 which cannot be allowed to happen again by the mere passing of this CCB, which attempts to be a cart blanche passport to their freedom to do anything they fancy.  It is a Bill suitable for Saddam Hussein.

Regional and Emergency Co-ordinators

19. The provisions therein seem to imply the UK has been split into Regions!  This has not happened, nor has the public voiced their approval for such regions, so jumping the gun is totally inappropriate and should not be part of this dreadful Bill.


23. The Bill is overtly draconian, and by defining an "emergency" which can be identified as something that happens every day in this country, makes it a complete farce and non starter.

The whole thread of the Bill invokes a feeling of a government that wants total control of every facet of life within work and private time. It is far too engulfing to be seen as "emergency planning" -  it is an insidious attempt to impose a Marshall Law in a soviet state, which is simply not required.

The operational response of our existing emergency services has been proven, time and time again, to be adequate - as per Boscastle. Any further red-tape will immobilise human ingenuity.


Clauses 2(1) Duty to assess plan and advise

26. Para 15. The terminology is ill-fitting and woolly; Emergency Incident workers presently subscribe to sensible Major Incident definitions and the "emergencies" defined within this CCB could in fact be tuned down to personalised, low level incidents, which would not require the massive response planned for in this CCB.

Ref :

The Chief Executive of the County Council, (or his representative) acting as Emergency Co-ordinator must be able to incur expenditure immediately in order to carry out the role effectively, irrespective of who eventually meets the bill and, if no other authority is available, may rely on the provision of Section 138 of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended by Section 156 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Section 155 of the latter Act provides for a scheme whereby local authorities may recoup from central government a proportion of agreed expenditure under the 'Bellwin Rules'.

In Para 35 of this flawed CCB the idea that the UK could use the US 'model' is only valid if the financial advantages of a regional State of Emergency were to apply - the UK does not have Regions!! Thus the Bellwin Rules will apply for a claim after an emergency (a real emergency, and not some gang of Boy Scouts marching over an acre of oats) and it appears to me this CCB does not give the advantages of the US emergency financial aid provision, and it cannot have.


46.  The questions posed are in the main 'closed' questions - this is not appropriate if an informed distillation of views are to be finally drawn together.  Even the types of questions lend to the impression the matter has already been cut into stone and this is a whitewash exercise, pretending to "consult".  That the time factor is very short (are we surprised?) for responses and sensible analytical debate thereafter proves the point that it looks like a government stitch up.  Thus YOUR approach to your MP and the Lords is required.

57.  Q9. The idea that another separate Inspectorate be born to 'police' local government in their application of Emergency Planning is ludicrous - there are enough bells and whistles in suits sucking funds dry.

58.  Q10. Another job for the boys - a separate salaried Regional Nominated Co-ordinator. This is just preposterous - get value from existing experts not some lone shark wanting a quite pension. Look how Peter Hain's little bunch of helpers has grown since 1997, and their salaries/expenses into six figures!

61.  Q12. The present legislation is hardly outdated - Boscastle speaks for itself.

66.  Q15. Special legislative measure declaration should only remain with the Monarch.

67.  Q16. There is no need to give Ministers such expansive powers as outlined in Q15. It will always take some time to mobilise any response from outside the local area, and local responders will be able to cope with the immediate emergency (Boscastle). There would therefore not be any significant delay in seeking a royal Proclamation if so required. This question (Q16) just confirms the total controlling aspects this government wants to wrest from the people of the UK which is a clear danger to democracy.


PLEASE action this day:

Call and leave messages at 0207-219-5353.

You can leave up to 3 messages, one for each of 3 different Peers. You will get two sentences per message, plus your name and telephone number......... have your two sentences ready. You can leave a message for any Peer or MP, 24/7 at 0207-219-5353. 

When the Lords and MPs return on 7th September, use numbers 0207- 219 - 3107 (Lords) and 0207- 219- 3000 (MPs) during opening hours, and -5353 after hours and at weekends.

You can also write a letter (see here for protocol

Send it to Lord or Baroness XYZ ... House of Lords, London. SW1A OPW.



Captain Bryn Wayt

01435 864937

PS: Conservative Peers List: