As a matter of fact, very few of the Bills, as far as I have been able to understand their purpose -- always conceding that I am no expert in legislative procedures -- are likely to make any positive impact in the real sense of the word, even if they eventually become law. And most of them are not likely ever to become law because there is not enough time left before the election in May 2005.

There is probably some substance to the suspicion, felt by many, that Tony Blair's Government is fuelling the politics of fear, judging by the emphasis the Queen's Speech put on the proposed measures for dealing with security and law and order and curbing terrorist activities. Consider, for example, the following:

ID Cards: National Identity Cards are definitely on their way. They are expected to make their first appearance in 2008 and will become compulsory by 2012. Everybody over the age of 16 will be required to procure one of these hi-tech 'biometric' cards (at a cost of £85 per head) which are being designed to help the war on fraud, benefit scams, illegal immigration and terrorism. These will be the first ID cards seen in the UK since similar documents issued during World War II were abolished 52 years ago.

The implementation of the scheme is expected to cost in excess of £3 billion and is facing widespread opposition from civil liberties campaigners, a number of Cabinet members and many Labour MPs, who claim that by the time the cards are introduced the total cost is sure to have escalated and ordinary citizens are more than likely to become ensnared in meddling bureaucracy, while well-financed terrorists and organised criminals will simply evade the scheme.

FBI-style Crime Squad: A British version of the American FBI, comprising of at least 5,000 officers, will be created in order to step up the fight against organised crime. The new Serious Oraganised Crime Agency (SOCA) will take over many duties of the current National Crime Squad, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and certain sections of the Customs and Immigration Service. SOCA will concentrate on cracking down on drug and people traffickers and internet paedophiles and bringing to an end the very long-standing turf wars between Britain's notoriously insular crime-fighting bodies.

Trial Without Jury: The process will shortly begin to prepare and publish a draft Counter-Terrorism Bill which will open the way to set up new courts operating without juries to tackle terrorism in various forms. It is very likely that this Bill will allow phone-tap evidence to be used in courts without corroboration for the first time. In justification of this proposal, the Queen (that is to say, the Government) said in her address: "We live in a time of global uncertainty, with an increased threat of international terrorism and organised crime." The Home Secretary David Blunkett said to Jonathan Dimbleby on the ITV One programme that the Government was trying to create a situation which would safeguard all of us from new terrorist threats without compromising human rights in a free society. But the two major security agencies, MI6 and GCHQ, both have doubts about the use of phone-tap evidence in courts for fear that this will jeopardise their methods by exposing their sources.

Meanwhile, Opposition parties have been severely critical of Labour's hard-line tactics, calling the proposed measures nothing but scaremongering. The co-chairman of the Tory party said: "It is clear that they (the Labour Government) are trying to raise the fears from terrorism in the country at the present time. Now I think that is quite despicable, but it is a desperate Government." The Liberal Democrat parliamentary chairman also remarked that Labour was focusing on fear whereas the Lib-Dems were offering hope, adding: "Crime and terror would be better addressed with 10,000 more police and a National Border Force, rather than wasting £3 billion on ID cards that didn't protect people in the US or Spain and which would curtail British rights and liberties." The human rights group Liberty accused the government of adopting draconian measures and trying to introduce 'medievalisitic' rules in the name of law and order. The group's director said that he was deeply worried by the fact that the government was poised to disregard people's right to trial by jury on the pretext of declaring war on terrorism.

Prime Minister Tony Blair, however, was unapologetic about the alarmist tone of much of the Queen's Speech. "It is said these measures are scaremongering," he said in the Commons: "but the fact is that the threats faced by the country and every other major country around the world are real." And the Leader of the Commons also made no attempt to disguise the government's true intent. Brushing aside fears that the proposed new measures would infringe civil liberties he said: "If you are bombed by a terrorist, what is your liberty then? In the end people have to be safe to enjoy their liberty."

It is clear that although most of the proposed new legislation has little chance of making it to the statute book if there is a May election, the bulk of them is very likely to figure in Labour's manifesto for a third term.

Mind your manners, please!

The other day, I came across a recently published book named What's It All About? Philosophy and the Meaning of Life written by Julian Baggini. I have not had the chance yet to do anything more than just skim the pages but I have been so intrigued by my first impression of the comments made by the author -- who, incidentally, is a highly esteemed philosopher and man of letters -- on the sharp decline in manners in our contemporary times that I feel I must share my feelings with the readers of London Letter. As I have not read the book properly yet, I shall not make any comments on its contents as a whole but confine myself only to mentioning some of the tips Dr Baggini has given on how to live a well-mannered life in the 21st century. I have, of course, taken the liberty of modifying the original language to present only the gist. Here goes:

You should not accept or continue a phone call while being served by, for example, a shop assistant or someone similar, because by doing so you are treating them as absent and the absent caller as present and thus denying them their humanity.

If you use a mobile phone (and who doesn't these days?), you should never text anybody in the middle of a conversation.

You should always monitor your volume when chatting on your mobile phone. Remember that not everyone around you is interested in the fascinating details of your personal life.

While driving, stop for pedestrians at pedestrian crossings. You are better able to demonstrate that you are in control not by ignoring them but by showing that you are aware of them.

On public transport, allow people to alight before you board.

Do not put your feet up on the seats.

If you go through a door first, you should always hold it open for those who follow.

Offer your seat to the elderly, but do not assume they will want it. Remember, many older people are fitter than indolent thritysomethings, so avoid patronising them.

Offer your seat to a pregnant woman (only when you are sure she is pregnant) or one carrying a child.

When addressing Christmas (or Eid) cards to people who are not really close to you, do not include their children.

Never tell someone else's child off in front of them, or criticise adults for their poor parenting (except when you really should).

Remember that neither the cinema nor the theatre is your own front room. If you do want to talk while watching a film, rent a video or DVD.

Do not punctuate your sentences with profanities in public. Most people are likely to be offended or bored by them.

Do not think "I was here first" is a trump card you can play on every occasion. People who always assert their rights are not necessarily always in the right.

Well, perhaps not all these tips would be quite relevant to our own social strata and lifestyles, considering the fact that they are Occidentally oriented, nevertheless they are interesting pointers to human nature in general.