John Allman

party: Restore the Family For Children's Sake
constituency: North Cornwall

back to candidate list

The standards of goods and services that are essential, such as food and water, are generally highly regulated. Do you support enforced minimum standards in housing as a precondition of a renting?

organisation: Generation Rent

Yes.

Private sector landlords receive over £27bn a year in housing benefit and tax breaks. Would you support a rent tax that recouped up to a third of this to fund new housing supply?

organisation: Generation Rent

No.

How would you reform surveillance law, oversight and practice to respect the rights of law-abiding people?

organisation: Open Rights Group (ORG)

Although I am standing in North Cornwall with the single issue party description "Let every child have both parents", I have personal opinions about this topic, which is a specialist subject of mine in my "day job". For example, I have followed with interest, for about 21 months now, the court case that is documented on the Philip Kerr -v- MI5 blog, at

https://philipkerrblog.wordpress.com/

I have posted these two posts on my own blog

https://johnallmanuk.wordpress.com/2014/10/22/human-rights-and-harassment/

and

https://johnallmanuk.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/killed-org-uk/

I also wrote an article called "DOCILE Surveillance" about the inadequacy of RIPA, over ten years ago. (D.O.C.I.L.E. is an acronym.)

I believe that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, from which there is no appeal, should cease to be a court in its own right, and one that is not subject to the Civil Procedure Rules, and the only court with jurisdiction to hear a HRA s7(1)(a) claim against an intelligence agency. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal should become nothing more than an agency that attempts to enable Alternative Dispute Resolution of claims brought in the ordinary courts against the intelligence agencies.

There is a particular problem in that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to hear claims brought against intelligence agencies under The Protection From Harassment Act 1997 (PHA) section 3(1), in the manner set out in the PHA (including s12) and with Burris v Adazani as a leading case law authority on the appropriate factual tests for a claimant to qualify for injunctive relief.

The net result is that an intelligence agency has a licence to harass. We know, from history (e.g. the Stasi in East Germany), that a great many victims of harassment on the part of intelligence agencies, are simply practice targets, abused in the course of research and development of harassment techniques and technologies, and the training of new harassers.

Would you support the creation of a Royal Commission to review Britain’s drug laws?

organisation: CISTA

I would support a review. Whether a Royal Commission is the correct approach to that review is a question on which I am not committed.