• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Britain: Police State?

And the little governmental fucktards are at it again...

A senior Vodafone network architecture specialist has been appointed by Jacqui Smith to draw up proposals for a multibillion pound central silo of communications data, amid a Whitehall row about the future of the project, The Register has learned.

The Home Office team responsible for the Interception Modernisation Programme (IMP) have been told to make the case for the expansion of state surveillance it would involve again, according to insiders.

The plans were originally put forward by intelligence chiefs to "maintain capability" to intercept communications as use of internet-based technology - such as BT's new 21CN backbone - grows. Opponents have labelled such claims the "keep running to stand still" strategy, a satirical reference to Alice Through the Looking Glass.

In response to the civil service controversy over IMP, Jacqui Smith announced in October that the Communications Data Bill - the legislation that would mandate the project - would not come before Parliament during the current session. It began on December 3 and runs until the end of October 2009. Instead she said there will be a public consultation beginning in January.

Sources said the several dozen officials working on IMP recently moved away from the "hot house" atmosphere surrounding it in the Home Office to occupy government offices at Great George Street (known as GOGGS), off Parliament Square. The Home Office also recently created a director-level position to take charge of the project and installed the Vodafone man.

Tim Hayward, erstwhile senior programme manager at the UK's second largest mobile operator, was appointed IMP director in August. While at Vodafone he was responsible for 3G network architecture, according to careers information posted on the web.

A Home Office spokesman told The Register: "We only comment on the appointment of senior members of the Home Office board. We're unable to comment on Tim Hayward's appointment."

A Vodafone spokeswoman said she could provide no details of Hayward's previous role at the firm.

Until June the IMP team worked under a lower level civil servant, who it's understood is no longer associated with the project.

Sources also confirmed that Vodafone, along with BT, has signed on for a £1bn IMP pilot project. It's planned the "black box" data harvesters that the electronic surveillance agency GCHQ wants to deploy throughout the UK communications infastructure will be inserted in Vodafone and BT's networks initially. A Vodafone spokeswoman said: "We are not involved in any pilot programme."

Source

Hopefully folks will see sense and tell the government where to stick its snooping equipment (copious amounts of KY jelly may be needed though), Still it may keep at least one bit of the manufacturing business going.
 
A PRIVATE firm to track and store all our texts, emails, calls and internet use? Is this the supersecure centralised database the Government have been promising?

In the words of one commentator...

Maintaining the capacity to intercept suspicious communications was critical in an increasingly complex world, he said. "It is a process which can save lives and bring criminals to justice. But no other country is considering such a drastic step. This database would be an unimaginable hell-house of personal private information," he said. "It would be a complete readout of every citizen's life in the most intimate and demeaning detail. No government of any colour is to be trusted with such a roadmap to our souls."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/3 ... -liberties
 
As a railway enthusiast myself, this annoys me...

Trainspotters being stopped under anti-terror powers
Trainspotters are being stopped by police using draconian anti-terrorism powers, it has emerged.

By Ben Leach
Last Updated: 7:35AM GMT 05 Jan 2009

The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2000 has been used to stop 62,584 people at railway stations and another 87,000 were questioned under "stop and search" and "stop and account" legislation.

Liberal Democrat transport spokesman Norman Baker, who uncovered the figures, warned that Britain was heading towards a "police state".

He said: "Law-abiding passengers get enough hassle on overcrowded trains as it is without the added inconvenience of over-zealous policing.

"The anti-terror laws allow officers to stop people for taking photographs and I know this has led to innocent trainspotters being stopped.

more...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... owers.html
 
Uselessness of CCTV

Further to remarks above re CCTV, in the last couple of weeks I noticed two CCTV images published in local papers (Winchester/Southampton area) in the hope that someone might identify suspected miscreants. In one of them the two people in shot were detectably not unusually tall/short/fat, but otherwise completely unidentifiable even to sex, let alone facial features.

In the other image, what was visible was not even recognisably human! If presented on a ghost-hunting site, it would have been dismissed as inconclusive. I suspect local Councils are spending oodles of our money on installing poor or inappropriate equipment so that they can claim to be "combatting crime" with no checks as to whether it's "fit for purpose."
 
..and as a photographer, this annoys me:

Photographers criminalised as police 'abuse' anti-terror laws
Fury as stop-and-search powers are used to block and confiscate legal pictures
By Jonathan Brown
Tuesday, 6 January 2009

Reuben Powell is an unlikely terrorist. A white, middle-aged, middle-class artist, he has been photographing and drawing life around the capital's Elephant & Castle for 25 years.

With a studio near the 1960s shopping centre at the heart of this area in south London, he is a familiar figure and is regularly seen snapping and sketching the people and buildings around his home – currently the site of Europe's largest regeneration project. But to the police officers who arrested him last week his photographing of the old HMSO print works close to the local police station posed an unacceptable security risk.

"The car skidded to a halt like something out of Starsky & Hutch and this officer jumped out very dramatically and said 'what are you doing?' I told him I was photographing the building and he said he was going to search me under the Anti-Terrorism Act," he recalled. :shock:

For Powell, this brush with the law resulted in five hours in a cell after police seized the lock-blade knife he uses to sharpen his pencils. His release only came after the intervention of the local MP, Simon Hughes, but not before he was handcuffed and his genetic material stored permanently on the DNA database.

But Powell's experience is far from uncommon. Every week photographers wielding their cameras in public find themselves on the receiving end of warnings either by police, who stop them under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, or from over-eager officials who believe that photography in a public area is somehow against the law.

Groups from journalists to trainspotters have found themselves on the receiving end of this unwanted attention, with many photographers now fearing that their job or hobby could be under threat.

So serious has the situation become that the MP and keen photographer Austin Mitchell, chairman of the Parliamentary All-Party Photography Group, tabled an early day motion last March deploring the "officious interference or unjustified suspicion" facing camera enthusiasts around public buildings, where they are increasingly told that it is against the law to photograph public servants at all – especially police officers or community support officers – or that members of the public cannot be photographed without their written permission. The Labour MP is now calling for a photography code for officers so that snappers can continue going about their rightful business.

Yet, according to the Association of Chief Police Officers, the law is straightforward. "Police officers may not prevent someone from taking a photograph in public unless they suspect criminal or terrorist intent. Their powers are strictly regulated by law and once an image has been recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate it without a court order. This applies equally to members of the media seeking to record images, who do not need a permit to photograph or film in public places," a spokeswoman said.

But still the harassment goes on. Philip Haigh, the business editor of Rail magazine, said the bullying of enthusiasts on railway platforms has become an unwelcome fact of life in Britain. "It is a problem that doesn't ever seem to go away. We get complaints from railway photographers all the time that they are told to stop what they are doing, mainly by railway staff but also by the police. It usually results in an apologetic letter from a rail company," he said.

In the summer, armed police swooped on a group of trainspotters known as the Steam Boys as they waited with high-powered photographic equipment to capture a 1950s engine called The Great Marquess as it crossed the Forth Bridge near Gordon Brown's constituency home in Fife.

The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) has also taken up the cause, highlighting the case last month of the photographer Jess Hurd, whose camera was taken from her when she was detained for 45 minutes under Section 44 while documenting a traveller wedding in London's Docklands. Last week police were filmed obstructing photographers covering a protest at the Greek embassy in London. Scotland Yard promised to investigate.

Jeremy Dear, the general secretary of the NUJ, said: "It's time the police realised that taking photographs doesn't automatically mean you're a terrorist. Every month the NUJ finds itself dealing with yet more cases of officers infringing journalistic freedoms and, very often, exceeding their legal powers.

"Even the police's own guidance makes it clear that there's nothing in the Terrorism Act that can be used to prohibit the taking of photos in a public place. The authorities have got to do more to ensure that those people charged with upholding the law don't keep on contravening it by trampling over well-established civil liberties."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 28149.html
 
and to think that all you got in my day was a resident poet (who was a bit of a dick!)

Police placed in all city schools

Teachers say the police will help them drive home an anti-crime message

Every secondary school in Leeds is to have a dedicated police officer as part of a drive to cut crime.

Eight of the city's 38 schools will have a full-time police presence. Another 16 officers will cover the remaining 30 schools.

More than 250 offences were committed in Leeds schools in 2008, figures show.

Although officers will be able to arrest and search pupils, West Yorkshire Police stressed they would focus on education not enforcement.

The 24 officers involved in the project will support lessons on weapons and drugs awareness, citizenship and personal safety as well as tackling issues like bullying, absenteeism and truancy.


We are trying to make sure that we are providing a safe environment in which all our children can learn
Jean Clennell, Roundhay School deputy head

They are undergoing training and will join up with their schools over the next few weeks in what is believed to be the biggest scheme of its kind outside London.

Ch Supt Mark Milsom, the lead officer for the Safer Schools Partnership, said the scheme would "ensure every pupil in Leeds has the opportunity to receive extra support they may need...and steer them away from offending".

"Our schools are very safe places to be and by working even closer together we can ensure that both our schools and the local communities within Leeds become even safer," he said.

The launch of the Leeds Safer Schools Partnership follows a previous project where 11 officers shared responsibility for several schools across the district.

'Highly recommended'

Ch Insp Mark Busley said: "The schools which took part previously enjoyed real benefits from the extra support and closer contact with officers, including developing good examples of dealing with issues which can affect pupils in all schools.

"Rolling this partnership out across the district is designed to ensure that all pupils and schools have the opportunity to benefit from this."

Jean Clennell, deputy head teacher at Roundhay School, said: "We are trying to make sure that we are providing a safe environment in which all our children can learn.

"Developing a good working relationship, especially with the police service, has assisted us greatly.

"Schools have a lot to gain from establishing a safer school partnership and we would highly recommend this approach."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west ... 815281.stm
 
This story seems to belong here, even though it doesn't involve the Police or Government:

CCTV cameras used to provide 'evidence' against diners who complained
It is a jewel in the National Trust's crown, a restaurant that offers fine dining and some of the best Rothschild wines amid the splendour of a 19th century stately home.

By David Harrison
Last Updated: 1:52AM GMT 11 Jan 2009

But when the Fletcher family went for a pre-Christmas treat at the Manor Restaurant in Waddesdon Manor, near Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, they were disappointed with their meal.

Marilyn Fletcher, 57, sent a letter complaining of slow service and poor food, in a lunch which cost £127 for four.

But she was left astonished by the restaurant's response. Simon Offen, the catering manager, emailed her to say he disputed her version of events after he had "watched and listened with interest to the video recording of her table".

Mrs Fletcher was horrified that the meal had been recorded on CCTV cameras, and said her family found it "extremely disturbing" and felt "outrage at the invasion of our privacy".

In a letter to the National Trust's director-general, Dame Fiona Reynolds, she asked: "Does the National Trust condone recording, watching and listening to private conversations at customers' tables in National Trust restaurants?"

Mrs Fletcher, from Great Missenden, near High Wycombe, has demanded to see and listen to the recording, and has questioned the legality of Mr Offen's actions.

"There was no legitimate or lawful reason why Mr Offen should have been recording conversations at our table and then listening to them 'with interest'," she said.

A spokeswoman for the Information Commissioner said that CCTV cameras should only be used if there was a "genuine justification" for them, usually to prevent or detect crime. Recording conversations in a restaurant would be "deeply intrusive", she said.

The British Hospitality Association said: "This is the first time we have heard of CCTV cameras being used to monitor people at their tables in a restaurant. You can understand it outside the door or in corridors perhaps but inside the restaurant does seem a bit odd."

When contacted by The Sunday Telegraph, Mr Offen confirmed that he had watched the video to verify Mrs Fletcher's complaints, but denied that any sound recording had been made. The National Trust said the cameras had been installed as a security measure to monitor the restaurant's till, not guests at tables.

Mrs Fletcher, her 58-year-old husband John, and their 20-year-old daughter and teenaged son went to the Manor Restaurant on Dec 22. Mrs Fletcher and her daughter are members of the National Trust and the family had been to the restaurant several times before. The lunch table was booked two months in advance.

"The service was terrible," Mrs Fletcher wrote in her letter of complaint. "We waited 20 minutes at our table until we were asked what we would like to drink."

In an attempt to get some service, Mrs Fletcher went over to three waiters who she said were "lolling about" in another part of the restaurant, only to be told that they worked only for their "half" of the restaurant.

When the cold drinks the family ordered finally arrived they came in glasses that were hot.

More problems followed. "My husband's soup was lukewarm," Mrs Fletcher said. "My son's mushroom pancakes were bland.

"The roast pork portions were mean – just one slice – and the gravy was thick and tasted not unlike Oxo gravy.

"The vegetables were terrible. They tasted as though they were cooked well in advance and then heated up. My dessert was tasteless."

The total cost of the outing, including the meal, parking and a walk around the grounds, was £134.

Mrs Fletcher said the food was "not much better than a school dinner".

Mr Offen replied to Mrs Fletcher with an indignant email. "It is quite clear that whatever we do you will not be happy with us," he wrote. Her attitude, he alleged, was tainted by "a vindictiveness which belies the spirit of Christmas, and it is both unusual and shocking when it concerns a mere lunch for four".

Disputing Mrs Fletcher's version of events, he wrote: "I have spoken with all the staff on duty and watched and listened with interest to the video recording of your table and the restaurant at the time.

"You sat at your table at 14.31, at 14.41 whilst the staff in your room were running about, you stormed over to the cash desk to make your point. At 14.44 your order was taken."

Mr Offen said that, despite the complaint, the Fletchers had eaten all their food – a claim denied by Mrs Fletcher.

"I am tempted to say that it is probably better that you do not use our facilities again," he added.

In her email to Dame Fiona on Dec 30, Mrs Fletcher accused Mr Offen of failing to accept reasonable criticism and denied that she had been "vindictive."

On Jan 3, after being contacted by this newspaper, Mr Offen sent an email to Mrs Fletcher confirming that he had watched the video "in collecting evidence to either verify or deny your claims" but said the security camera system did not record sound.

Mrs Fletcher said: "Neither I nor my husband believe this. We think he referred to the audio recording to try to intimidate us ... Now Mr Offen sees we are not prepared to be intimidated, he changes his story
.

"What if members of our family had discussed a family secret? Or a confidential commercial transaction?"

A spokesman for the National Trust said the camera was "trained on the till" as a security precaution and was not pointed at the tables. No other National Trust restaurant or café had CCTV cameras, the spokesman said.

...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ained.html
 
I assume the guy has since been fired, he was obviously lying through his teeth about the video.
 
I hope so, he sounds like a real twat.

If people want to go to a restaurant where they know they'll be video'd and recorded at their tables well fair enough, but doing it covertly and using it as 'evidence'? No thanks :(
 
Catch 'em young....

Caught on a classroom spy camera - the primary school pupil who hid this girl's shoes
By Jason Lewis and Stephanie Condron
Last updated at 2:32 AM on 11th January 2009

Primary schools are using surveillance cameras to track down and punish children behind classroom pranks.
The revelation is sure to add to the controversy surrounding the installation of the Big Brother-style CCTV and microphones in classrooms.

One school - Lynch Hill Primary in Slough, Berkshire - has even disclosed how it used the sophisticated equipment to identify an eight-year-old girl who hid her friend's shoes during a lesson.
The school has the cameras in 12 classrooms, three corridors, the school reception area, the music room and the canteen.
School bursar Lyn Hazell said: 'Someone hid a child's shoes and we found it on the tape so we knew where they were and who had hidden them.
'No one was owning up so we rewound the tape. If the teachers say, "I will rewind the tape," it makes them own up.
'The cameras are there as a deterrent. The parents are notified that the cameras are used. There are signs all around the school.
'It's not possible to opt-out and we have not had anyone saying they do not want to have them used.'

The girl who took the shoes was sent a warning 'yellow letter' from the school. Children who get three of these letters are suspended.
The 'victim' of the incident was a pupil named Lauren, also eight, who thought she had lost her favourite shoes - £13 black patent ballet pumps with a bow.
Her mother, Rosie Reardon, said: 'Her friend played a trick but Lauren did not find it that funny. She was quite upset.
'I'm quite glad there are cameras as they can help with situations like this.'
Lauren said: 'I was on the computer and I took my shoes off and then they were gone. I panicked a little bit. It was nearly home time.
'After they checked the cameras, my shoes were found in a locker. I was very happy to get them back.'

But the mother of the 'guilty' girl, who asked that her daughter should not be named, said: 'This use of the cameras is ridiculous.
'She took the shoes and hid them in a locker. We all do silly things and play jokes when we are children. They should have given her a chance - she's only eight.'
She said she had been in favour of the cameras being introduced to protect children but is horrified at how they are now being used.
'My daughter no longer wants to go to the school,' she said. 'The cameras have made her a bit panicky. Children should be taught to tell the truth without the use of these cameras.'

Classwatch, which markets the devices as a way to identify pupils disrupting lessons, is due to meet the Information Commissioner for urgent talks this week.
The data protection watchdog has the power to ban the equipment unless Classwatch and the 85 schools that have installed the system can persuade him its use is justified.
The Commissioner's office says use of this sort of system is 'deeply intrusive' and raises 'privacy concerns for teachers, students and their parents'.
Angus Drever, managing director of Classwatch, which charges £3,000 to install the system in each classroom, said it was acceptable for schools to use it to identify misdemeanours.
'My reading of the CCTV code of practice is there is nothing wrong in this,' he said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... shoes.html
 
The girl who took the shoes was sent a warning 'yellow letter' from the school. Children who get three of these letters are suspended.

that's bloody ridiculous. 8 year old kids do stuff like that on a fairly regular basis... i can't help thinking that most of my year at school cira 1978 would have been on permanent suspension if you'd tried to hold us to those standards, and i dare say the teacher too :shock:
 
Re: Uselessness of CCTV

pTerryH said:
Further to remarks above re CCTV, in the last couple of weeks I noticed two CCTV images published in local papers (Winchester/Southampton area) in the hope that someone might identify suspected miscreants. In one of them the two people in shot were detectably not unusually tall/short/fat, but otherwise completely unidentifiable even to sex, let alone facial features.

In the other image, what was visible was not even recognisably human! If presented on a ghost-hunting site, it would have been dismissed as inconclusive. I suspect local Councils are spending oodles of our money on installing poor or inappropriate equipment so that they can claim to be "combatting crime" with no checks as to whether it's "fit for purpose."

I'm firmly of the belief that real criminals have absolutely nothing to fear from CCTV, they seem only fit for catching the kind of twat who has a scrap outside the kebab shop at 2am, and gets lifted there and then, by the police, as part of a continuous scene on the tape. Time and again I see appeals like the one above, showing an indistinct grey blob that the police wants to identify and interview, but never hear the trumpeting of villains brought to book by CCTV, unless they are nicked on the spot.

My brother had every tool nicked from his van a few weeks ago, CCTV footage of the crooks doing it, enough cameras round the town that surely the crooks' movements could be tracked and them arrested? Weeeell, no, course not, "not enough evidence" to knock on their door and make some enquiries. We've been told in no uncertain terms that if we go and make some "enquiries" ourselves, we'll be in deep trouble. I bet they'll be able to trace movements of our cars going across town when they find a known thief with his legs broken though, even if we deny all knowledge.

The thing is that I think they rely on someone being told there is CCTV footage of them, and the suspect caves in and confesses. If everyone had a cool head and said, "No, you are mistaken, PROVE that grainy blob is me", these things would be less easy for councils to justify. The canny career criminal doesn't care about them, so long as he isn't caught in the act.
 
Big Brother database a 'terrifying' assault on traditional freedoms
Plans condemned as the greatest threat to civil rights for decades

By Ben Russell, Home Affairs Correspondent
Thursday, 15 January 2009

Sweeping new powers allowing personal information about every citizen to be handed over to government agencies faced condemnation yesterday amid warnings that Britain is experiencing the greatest threats to civil rights for decades.

Shami Chakrabarti, the director of the pressure group Liberty, warned that the laws, published yesterday, were among a string of measures that amounted to a "terrifying" assault on traditional freedoms.

Proposals in the Coroners and Justice Bill include measures to authorise ministers to move huge amounts of data between government departments and other agencies and public bodies. Bodies that hold personal information include local councils, the DVLA, benefits offices and HM Revenue and Customs.

The Bill will allow ministers to use data-sharing orders to overturn strict rules that require information to be used only for the purpose it was taken. But it places no limit on the information that could eventually be shared between public bodies, potentially allowing vast amounts of personal data to be shared by officials across Whitehall, agencies or other public bodies.

Safeguards in the Bill will ensure that the proposed orders are considered by the Information Commissioner and require them to be formally approved by Parliament.

Ministers insisted there would be a series of safeguards to ensure that data was secure and not misused. But in an interview with The Independent Ms Chakrabarti warned the measure was one of a string of threats to civil liberties that range from attacks on the Human Rights Act, the advent of ID cards, and proposals to retain data on internet and email use. She declared: "The combination amounts to the most authoritarian time in my lifetime. In Britain, we are seeing happening things I would never have dreamt of seeing."

Ms Chakrabarti also condemned plans in the Bill to restrict the use of juries in inquests and hold hearings in secret. She added: "It's the second week of January and we have already seen plans for new gang Asbos and secret coroners as well as very broad data- sharing measures. What will next week bring?"

etc....

Senior figures in British public life are launching a "call to arms" to highlight the erosion of historic civil liberties.

These campaigners, who include the former director of public prosecutions Sir Ken MacDonald, the former attorney general Lord Goldsmith, as well as the musician Brian Eno and the author Philip Pullman, are backing a series of events to coincide with a major civil rights convention in London next month, at which they will speak. Organisers expect 1,000 people to attend the Convention on Modern Liberty, at which other speakers will include Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, Dominic Grieve, the shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, the campaigning Tory MP, and Lord Bingham, the former law lord.

Organisers of the event, at the Institute of Education, including the TUC and the rights group Liberty, said Britain could become "a new kind of police state". And yesterday, the journalist Henry Porter, one of the organisers, said: "This is a call to arms," and he warned of "the constant moves to a database state and threats to an individual". He added: "This is thoroughly dangerous." Baroness Helena Kennedy, the human rights lawyer, said: "We are seeing ways in which our system of law and the protections we have as citizens are slowly but surely being undermined. Liberty is being eroded for all of us."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 66716.html
 
Let the war on hypocrisy begin
Next month, an extraordinary coalition will unite to fight for our liberties. I urge you to join us
Henry Porter
The Observer, Sunday 18 January 2009

Look no further than the news of recent days to know why the Convention on Modern Liberty, launched last week in London by Baroness Kennedy, is so critical and is inspiring such support. As co-director, I would naturally talk it up, but many have been struck by the contrast - actually, I would say lunatic hypocrisy - in a government where you have a foreign secretary who, swooning for Obama, called for Britain to champion the rule of law and "uphold our commitments to human rights and civil liberties at home" and a justice secretary who a few hours before had announced measures in the Coroners and Justice Bill (a tricksy little portmanteau if ever there was one) that will bring in secret inquests and legalise a vast exchange of personal data between government departments.

"We have come to the moment," the great Whig orator Charles James Fox once said, "when the question is whether we should give ... to the executive government complete power over our thoughts." The answer from the forthcoming Convention on Modern Liberty gathering on 28 February will be a resounding no, because this is not some academic conference of liberal hysterics, but a call to arms, to all parties, to resist the government's attack on our liberties, rights and privacy.

And they have responded. Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat), David Lammy (Labour), Damian Green (Conservative), Caroline Lucas (Green), Edward Garnier (C), Andrew Dismore (L), Chris Huhne (Lib Dems), Dominic Grieve (C) and David Davis (C) will all speak. For they know that while Jack Straw and David Miliband insist that Britain is still an exemplary free society, the patterns we see in the Coroners and Justice Bill, ID card laws and the Communications Data Bill (which will allow the government to seize and store every text message, email, phone call and internet connection) tell us that our democracy is under serious threat.

But this is no awayday for MPs, because in some sense the convention is a challenge to a parliament. For a brief moment, we will be airing the issues that haven't been heard in the Commons this past decade, because Labour has all but anaesthetised the business of the chamber to push through its laws. Last week, I wrote a story for my blog on Comment is free that showed how statutory instruments - in other words, unscrutinised, undebated ministerial decrees - had doubled in the last 20 years, while the number of bills laid before parliament for scrutiny and debate had declined.

Interestingly, the scrutiny applied to these bills, which often come in the shape of a portmanteau of unrelated measures, has not intensified. With clever scheduling of Commons business and the use of the guillotine to cut short debate, also on the increase under Labour, the vast number of pages in these new bills are not usually examined properly.

There is probably an algebraic formula to express this, but essentially Labour's anti-democratic strategy is: more decrees, fewer bills, more pages, less time. So it is not hubris to suggest that we will be doing some of parliament's job by debating everything from the police and the influence of the political classes to children in the database state on 28 February. We could not have drawn from a larger pool of opinion. Our partners include such organisations as Liberty, the Rowntree Trust, the Observer and the Guardian, openDemocracy, the TUC, Countryside Alliance, NO2ID, Amnesty, Justice, Pen and the Fabian Society.

etc....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... convention
 
While I'm far from conviced that Britain (or the UK) has become an authoritarian or totalitarian state, I am worried that the state - elected as it is - evokes many more moral rules and judgements than is within its right.
Since the nonsensical declaration of a war on "terror" by the US, the Western States have clamoured to enact many laws which restrict the private, lawful citizen.
The UK government (of any political colour) is eager to bring in Identity Cards, regardless of cost and usefulness. The increase of CCTV in public use is, on the whole, pointless for anti-crime purposes - the detail is crap and the cost to actually view and use the data is past the "cost" of solving crime.

We don't live in a police state - where the government uses its powers to control the populace for a single political end. We live in a bureaocratic state which uses technical methods to preserve the bureaucracy. If this stops people dying ... then this is a plus.
 
Stormkhan said:
We don't live in a police state - where the government uses its powers to control the populace for a single political end. We live in a bureaocratic state which uses technical methods to preserve the bureaucracy. If this stops people dying ... then this is a plus.

The danger is that we are assembling the machinery and an apathy in people that could aid a more 'extreme' form government in the future.

Leaving aside the function creep that sees anti-terror legislation used by local councils and against amateur photographers, once the data collection is in place, that's it. You really can't get it back and it would be quite difficult to check for errors on your record. The fact that there is widespread cross-party concern and a constant howl from civil liberties groups should give a warning that the way ahead may not be as much of a plus as you think.
 
And Henry Port wades in....

What is noticeable now that so many of Labour's laws have come into force is the increase of pettiness, bullying and loss of humanity in local officials, government agencies and the various new breeds of wardens and community officers who patrol the streets looking to fine those who feed the birds and put up notices for their lost cat.

It is the detail of stories that reach the local press that tells us of the vast change in the relationship between the man in the street and authority. A new and – to me – alien element of harshness has entered the equation, and I believe we are going to see a lot more of it.

Pick any recent story, for instance, the one about Jack Roocroft of Monmouth, a pensioner suffering from leukaemia and on chemotherapy who was arrested by armed police after a hoax call saying that he had a gun. He refused to come out of his home because he feared that he would be shot, and for this he was held overnight in the cells.

These days it seems surprising that the police didn't use their new Taser stun gun on Mr Roocroft. They did on a confused 89-year old man in Llandudno, whom they believed was suicidal. In both cases it did not seem to occur to the police that all they needed to deploy was a firm and humane manner. Perhaps they have become so addicted to running round in their Swat gear and with their new gadgets that they can't tell the difference between a sick old fellow and a real threat.

This behaviour is not only unpleasant; it is dumb and utterly un-British. You see it in the appalling treatment of 78-year-old pub landlord Andy Miller, who collapsed and died of a heart attack after a bailiff went to his house and insisted that he drive him to the cash machine so that Mr Miller would pay an overdue speeding fine.

The justice minister, Jack Straw, has announced an inquiry into the incident but it is these bailiffs that Straw has licensed, so that they can force their way into homes to seize goods in settlement of fines for the first time in 400 years. Mr Miller's nephew Steve Flanigan, 61, said: "The visit must have been such a shock, because most people don't know what their rights are. When someone is there on your doorstep, can you just tell them to go away? Do you have to do what they say? Most people just wouldn't know."

Writing in the Guardian, Polly Toynbee once claimed that the people who feared New Labour's laws were simply privileged middle class folk looking for victimhood. The truth of the matter is that we all have something to fear, but especially those who cannot defend themselves, like the children whom the police have now got permission to Taser, even though in the last couple of weeks a 17-year-old boy was killed in America by one of these lethal guns.

Power has been given to the most minor officials to hurt and bully people. There is a new air of officiousness that is utterly unacceptable. Last week Damien and Charlotte Hall were told that Damien was too fat to adopt a child. Who said only thin people make good parents, and what right does Leeds city council have to comment on Mr Hall's weight? This is what Mr Hall said: "The bottom line is I'm too fat. I just feel as though we were only judged on my weight and not all the other good things about us. We don't drink or smoke and we could give a child a happy and safe home."

Harsh? Inhumane? Insensitive? Yes, but Leeds has nothing on Thanet council, which effectively forced a disabled 91-year-old mother to take out a second mortgage to pay for unnecessary stone-cladding repairs to make her home compliant with the Home Energy Conservation Act in Ramsgate, Kent. The £16,000 bill left Dorothy Hacking with £112 extra to pay on her mortgage each month. She was deaf, blind and extremely worried. Hardly surprising that she died. All the local council – in the shape of one Zita Wiltshire – could say in its defence was: "We are sympathetic to the concerns of our leaseholders but the council does spell out the detail of the financial obligations imposed upon a lessee in the terms of each right-to-buy lease." There speaks a bureaucratic bully.

If you are young or old, you are far more likely to experience the full force of the new authoritarianism. At Lynch Hill primary school in Slough they have started using CCTV cameras to track down children responsible for classroom pranks. A girl caught on film hiding another child's shows was exposed. Was the crime so serious? Couldn't a teacher elicit the information from the class without resorting to surveillance tapes? The girl's mother said: "This use of the cameras is ridiculous. She took the shoes and hid them in a locker. We all do silly things and play jokes when we are children. They should have given her a chance – she's only eight.

"My daughter no longer wants to go to the school," she added. "The cameras have made her a bit panicky. Children should be taught to tell the truth without the use of these cameras."

Sooner or later all of us are going to come against boneheaded, heartless officialdom. A very good piece in the Portsmouth News tells of university lecturer, John Molyneux, who was arrested and charged after a peaceful protest against the Gaza invasion in Portsmouth's Guildhall Square. It is alleged that he failed to give police notice of the demonstration. Since when do we have to ask the police to demonstrate?

Then there is David Gates who was stopped and searched after taking a picture of a police car parked at a bus stop, presumably because it was illegally parked. Police told him he was stopped under the Terrorism Act. Right, and I am bleeding Osama bin Laden.

Source

Funny though how MPs are trying to hide their expenses.......
 
Hiding expenses benefits MP's, of all political stripe. End of.

The whine of "War On Terror" and "Anti-terrorism laws" is theoretically used to strengthen the State's protection of it's citizens but is increasingly used to "enforce" bureaucracy and - well - officiousness.

When the major terrorist outrages happened in the US and London, the first thing the heads of state trot out is the line that these criminals will not change our daily life. It's true. It's the government that will change our daily life by laws which once enacted are a bugger to remove.
 
Police chiefs net thousands from secret bonus scheme
Hundreds of thousands paid out to senior officers
Sean O’Neill, Crime Editor

A secretive bonus scheme set up to reward the country’s top 300 police officers is paying out hundreds of thousands of pounds every year.

The police service refuses to disclose either amounts paid to individual officers or total payments from the Chief Officers’ Bonus Scheme.

But The Times has learnt that senior Metropolitan police officers shared more than £190,000 in one year, while the top ranks at Greater Manchester collected more than £53,000.

Scotland’s most senior officer, Stephen House, the Chief Constable of Strathclyde, was paid a bonus for his first six months in post.

In some cases the bonuses are awarded on the basis of “self-evaluation” by chief constables. Critics claim that the payments are further evidence of what has been called a “gravy beat” at the top of policing. There is also concern among the top ranks that the bonus culture damages the image and integrity of the police.

Several long-serving chiefs refuse to accept the money, including Sir Paul Scott-Lee, the West Midlands police chief, Paul West, the Chief Constable of West Mercia and Tim Brain, who leads the Gloucestershire force.

Paul Kernaghan, who retired as Chief Constable of Hampshire four months ago, said he refused payments as a matter of conscience.

“I found it deeply insulting that anyone would think I would work one iota harder simply to get a bonus of a few thousand pounds,” he said.

“When you become a chief constable, the job becomes your life and you work 24 hours a day. As a matter of principle you do the very best job you can do, you are motivated by wanting to be the best chief constable you can be. To suggest that a chief constable might have a pecuniary interest in making a particular decision is corrosive to their essential independence.” Attempts by The Times to find out the bonuses paid to chief constables were blocked by individual forces.

Almost 40 forces breached the terms of the Freedom of Information Act by failing to respond to detailed questions about chiefs’ pay and perks within 20 working days, the time limit set down in the legislation. Three months after requests were sent out to every force in the country, 20 have still not responded.

Only one payment – £14,249.07 paid to Richard Brunstrom, the Chief Constable of North Wales – was disclosed, with other forces refusing to reveal what they described as “personal information”.

etc...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 576295.ece
 
Absent fathers who refuse to pay child support will lose their passports under 'draconian' new plans
By Brendan Carlin
Last updated at 10:03 PM on 24th January 2009

Unprecedented plans to give bureaucrats the power to revoke people’s driving licences and passports without going through the courts will be unveiled this week.
Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell will announce the far-reaching proposals on Tuesday as part of a new crackdown on absent fathers who refuse to pay for the upkeep of their children.
Officials in charge of pursuing them for child maintenance arrears would win the right to bypass judges and ban them from driving or travelling abroad at the stroke of a pen.

Mr Purnell will justify the move – the first time civil servants and Government agencies will be able to bypass the normal legal process in this way – as an essential means of cracking down on parents who refuse to fulfil their financial responsibilities to their children.
‘For those who choose not to support their own kids, we will not stand by and do nothing. If a parent refuses to pay up, then we will stop them travelling abroad or even using their car,’ says Mr Purnell, who will unveil the plans as part of his new Welfare Reform Bill.

But the so-called ‘administrative’ justice plans, based on similar systems in Australia and America, will provoke a storm of protest from judges and civil liberties campaigners already alarmed at Labour’s ‘Big Brother’ state.
A legal expert said last night that the ‘draconian’ plans would give State officials the right to curtail people’s freedom of movement and would therefore breach human rights legislation. There are also fears that other civil servants will eventually be given the same sweeping powers.

Currently, officials at the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission have to apply to the courts when they want to punish absent parents by cancelling their driving licence or passport.

But under the new system, defaulters would simply receive notification from the CMEC that they could no longer drive or travel abroad.
Sources at the Department for Work and Pensions insisted that the plans would not breach human rights legislation and would be used only as a ‘last resort’.
They also said the driving licence part of the plan would be introduced initially on a trial basis in selected parts of the country, as this was something that could affect people’s ability to hold down a job.

But they added that parents who refused to pay towards their children’s upkeep or ran up maintenance arrears ‘are in effect borrowing money from their kids.
‘Unfortunately, some will go to great lengths to avoid paying.

We give them every opportunity to comply with maintenance payments but for those who continue to try to evade their responsibilities, we will use all the enforcement tools possible to make them pay what they owe.’
CMEC began work last year as the replacement for the failed Child Support Agency, which was abolished after a record of malfunctioning computer systems and maintenance arrears totalling £3.5billion.

The DWP cited ‘positive’ experiences of similar systems in Australia, where an extra £5million in maintenance was collected in the year up to August 2008 as a result of preventing absent parents in arrears from travelling abroad.
An additional £65million in child maintenance was netted since 1993 in the US state of Maine, which employed ‘an entirely administrative driving licence regime’, the DWP said.

But in December 2007, the respected Lords’ constitution committee warned that giving State officials the power to cancel passports would be a ‘serious’ curtailment of long-standing freedoms.’
It added: ‘The freedom to travel to and from one’s country is a right of great significance and should only be curtailed after a rigorous decision process.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... plans.html

This is the thin end of another big wedge. Who might be next in line for this sort of treatment? Council tax protesters? Library fines non-payers?
 
Some nastiness from the Met.....

In a recently introduced piece of bureaucracy, the Metropolitan police have started requiring live event producers across London to fill in the innocuous sounding "Form 696".

Here's the catch: it requires four pages of information from event organisers 14 days before it takes place. If you need to make last-minute changes – tough luck, the event can't go ahead. The Met police not only want to know the type of music to be played, but also names, aliases, phone numbers and addresses of performers. It will not only make putting on live bands very difficult for small venues, but also spell the end of impromptu open mic sessions.

This latest incarnation of police bureaucracy hasn't come out of nowhere. It even asks event promoters to provide details of their target audience, a further sign of the way it's been racialising music across London for a while.

I was, until recently, a regular at a monthly club night before the police suddenly started strictly enforcing ID checks. This wasn't merely to ensure I was above the required 18 years of age. Not only was everyone required to provide visual identification, but they also had to be logged in a computer database – otherwise none of us could go in. Everyone's driving licences were scanned through a machine and recorded on a computer, with no indication of how long the police would store the information for.

When I objected, the (white) club promoter was quite frank with me. He said the police had said they were "concerned" that the venue played "black and Asian music" and hence wanted added security. Any sort of trouble is extremely rare at this night. Yet their reasoning was that if any fight broke out, they could track everyone at the event if necessary.

Form 696 explicitly singles out musical styles such as R&B, bashment, garage or styles including MCs/DJs as examples of genres that have to be stated if put on. It also required event producers to state the likely racial profile of people attending. When accusations of racial profiling were inevitably raised by the music industry, the Met changed the wording to ask who it was targeted at.

One London council has already invoked prevention of terrorism in its licensing guidelines for live events.

Will people speak out only when live event-goers are asked for fingerprints and retina scans – all maintained on a database for "their own security"?

UK Music chief Feargal Sharkey recently told a Commons select committee that this policy had already been used to pull the plug on an afternoon charity concert of school bands in a public park, organised by a local councillor: "Live music is now a threat to the prevention of terrorism."

As Martin Rawlings, director of the Pub and Beer Association, rightly told a newspaper a couple of months ago:

"I know of licensees faced with this saying they are just not going to put live music on. Form 696 is being used only in London so far, but there are similar things going on around the country, where the police are asking publicans to sign various protocols. It has gone too far, frankly."

It has. You can sign the No 10 petition; write to your MP about it; or join the Facebook group.

Save live events, oppose police authoritarianism! You know it makes sense.

Source
 
To say that cctv is meant to prevent crime, in this instance it aided one, with a dodgy copper in the mix:

Pc abused position to spy on wife

A policeman from Lancashire abused his position by seizing CCTV footage from two pubs to spy on his unfaithful wife before attacking her, a court heard.

Andrew Liptrott, of Lostock Hall, who has already admitted seven counts of misconduct in a public office, denies three counts of assaulting wife, Karen.

Preston Crown Court heard the 47-year-old pretended he was investigating a serious crime to take the CCTV footage.

He also threw his naked wife from their house and attacked her, jurors heard.

The court heard that he told the British Airways stewardess as she stood unclothed: "Stand up so that the whole world can see what a dirty person you are."

A few moments afterwards, Mrs Liptrott was allowed back inside the house where her husband swung her round the bedroom by her hair, hitting her head, the prosecution claimed.


He was determined to find out as much as he could
Peter Davies, prosecution barrister

Six days after the attack, which happened on 18 March last year, Mr Liptrott pushed his wife to the floor and grabbed her again, the court heard.

Peter Davies, prosecuting, said the police constable, who worked as a crime prevention officer in Accrington, had become "obsessed" with his wife's affair with his best friend, Darren Watson.

Mr Liptrott used a work computer to spy on Mr Watson in an attempt to find out "incriminating" information about him.

Mr Davies said that the accused also installed software on his computer allowing him access to his wife's text messages.

He did this after reading a message in which she confided that she did not love him any more, the court heard.

"He had become obsessed about the affair and he was determined to find out as much as he could about it," Mr Davies said.

Mr Liptrott was arrested after his wife left the family home, taking their two young sons, and went to her parents' home in Morcambe.

He has admitted seven counts of misconduct in a public office, relating to the misuse of police computers and accessing the CCTV footage, but denies assault.

The trial continues.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lanc ... 852110.stm
 
This latest incarnation of police bureaucracy hasn't come out of nowhere. It even asks event promoters to provide details of their target audience, a further sign of the way it's been racialising music across London for a while.

My understanding is that this explicit requirement has been dropped after an outcry, but replaced by a question enquiring about the type of music which will be played - a question which will elicit similar information, as heavy metal or indie music will attract a predominantly white crowd, as opposed to, say, jungle or ragga.
 
And yet more nastiness

Two months ago, the UK Borders Agency began fingerprinting foreign
children over six years old, from outside the European Economic Area and resident in Britain. At the time Jacqui Smith was congratulated for her tough line on issuing identity cards to foreign residents and no one, not even parliament, noticed that the biometric requirements applied to children of six. And parliament didn't know because it was never asked to approve the policy.

Nowhere in the world are you more powerless than at a border. As a foreigner you also enjoy far fewer rights than locals. Do you think these children or their parents dare to speak up against the bureaucracy of the UK Borders Agency? In fact, no one has called the Borders Agency to account. Home Office officials I have talked to outside the agency were shocked that official government policy is now to fingerprint children.

When asked why (question 226407), the Home Office itself offers a much more solid defence: that the EU requires it. What it does not admit is that the British government is almost alone in pushing the EU to ensure that the age when fingerprinting can start is so low. Home Office officials pushed the EU to establish a standard age of six, despite opposition within other European governments. The next time you hear a government official support the EU, it is not just because it is a vehicle for "peace, prosperity and freedom", but also because it is a vehicle to push through policies that the UK government would prefer not to pursue through the legislature at home.

Source

Just glad my wife is an EU national....
 
And yet more fun for photographers....

The relationship between photographers and police could worsen next month when new laws are introduced that allow for the arrest - and imprisonment - of anyone who takes pictures of officers 'likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'.

Set to become law on 16 February, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 amends the Terrorism Act 2000 regarding offences relating to information about members of armed forces, a member of the intelligence services, or a police officer.

The new set of rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act, will target anyone who 'elicits or attempts to elicit information about (members of armed forces) ... which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'.

A person found guilty of this offence could be liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years, and to a fine.

The law is expected to increase the anti-terrorism powers used today by police officers to stop photographers, including press photographers, from taking pictures in public places. 'Who is to say that police officers won't abuse these powers,' asks freelance photographer Justin Tallis, who was threatened by an officer last week.

Tallis, a London-based photographer, was covering the anti-BBC protest on Saturday 24 January when he was approached by a police officer. Tallis had just taken a picture of the officer, who then asked to see the picture. The photographer refused, arguing that, as a press photographer, he had a right to take pictures of police officers.

According to Tallis, the officer then tried to take the camera away. Before giving up, the officer said that Tallis 'shouldn't have taken that photo, you were intimidating me'. The incident was caught on camera by photojournalist Marc Vallee.

Tallis is a member of the National Union of Journalists and the British Press Photographers' Association. 'The incident lasted just 10 seconds, but you don't expect a police officer to try to pull your camera from your neck,' Tallis tells BJP.

The incident came less than a week after it was revealed that an amateur photographer was stopped in Cleveland by police officers when taking pictures of ships. The photographer was asked if he had any terrorism connections and told that his details would be kept on file.

A Cleveland Police spokeswoman explained: 'If seen in suspicious circumstances, members of the public may well be approached by police officers and asked about their activities. Photography of buildings and areas from a public place is not an offence and is certainly not something the police wish to discourage. Nevertheless, in order to verify a person's actions as being entirely innocent, police officers are expected to engage and seek clarification where appropriate.'

Source

I can understand the fears of taking photos of the security service personnel, but this could be easily abused, especially if photos of police misbehaviour are taken,
 
I have photos of policemen, warships, docks, buildings and any number of other subjects which might, in certain circumstances, 'be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'.

But how 'likely' is that? And who is the judge of this likelihood?
Whatever happened to assessing the facts surrounding a crime, rather than pondering nebulous and indeterminate probabilities?

It certainly seems that we are inching ever closer to a state where we are all guilty unless proved innocent. :evil:
 
And some more from Mark Thomas

Back in the heady days of September 2007 I was at an arms fair in the Docklands in London, though to avoid confusion I should add I was outside speaking against it, rather than inside browsing. The crowd I addressed was a mixture of Quakers and crusties and for my troubles the police stopped and searched me as I left the event, an incident that I wrote about in Cif.

When the police conduct a stop and search they have to fill out a form giving their reasons and hand a copy over to you. On mine they wrote that Mr Thomas appeared to be an "influential individual" – a quote I intend to use in future publicity – and had attempted to walk past the police with an "over-confident manner" – always a sure sign of criminal intent. Maybe I am wrong, perhaps there is a forensic linkage with having an "over-confident manner" and criminality, perhaps the police routinely chase suspects through our metropolis shouting, "Stop him, he's got a jaunty demeanour!" But I got the distinct impression the police were stopping me because they thought they could.

My rakish over-confidence might be the reason I was stopped but the official purpose was to look for items I might use to commit criminal damage (the arms fair had been subject to a paint attack earlier in the day). So exactly what tools did the police hope to find rummaging through my wallet? Unless my wallet possessed some Tardis-like qualities it was unlikely that a large crowbar might clatter out from between a photo of my daughter and my British Library card? Wasn't this intrusive as well as unlawful?

Although protesters are often targeted for stop and search, often claiming these are unlawful, they seldom seem to put in official complaints. So with the help of solicitors at Fisher Meredith I brought a complaint against the police. Being Britain the first step in a complaint against an official body is for the very body you are complaining about to investigate itself. And lo the police did find themselves innocent.

In official interviews the officers who conducted the stop and search described me as "pleasant and conversational throughout the incident" and thus were "surprised and disappointed that Mr Thomas has made this complaint". Please note that it is me that has disappointed them in this complaint, we had a bond in those moments you see, a brief passing moment of pleasant intimacy, then I let them down. I don't return their calls, ignore them in the street and am later seen being searched by other police officers. In their logic my decent behaviour exonerates their bad behaviour.

So had I been rude or surly would this have implied guilt on their part? If when stopped I had responded by saying, "Fuck off copper", would they have blinked and spluttered, "Oh blimey, you got me bang to rights guv'nor ! It's an unlawful search, an' no mistake." How else are we meant to respond to the police if not politely? If innocent people respond rudely they become guilty by default. Suffice to say the police deemed there was "no case to answer".

So pressing on, the issue was put before the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). Now the IPCC generally attack the police with all the effective ferocity of a moth taking on a lightbulb. So I was somewhat taken aback when at the end of last year they declared that they "consider[ed] the stop and search of Mr Thomas and the subsequent search of his wallet was unlawful". And that "it would appear that the officers had misinterpreted their powers under PACE (Police And Criminal Evidence Act)". In an earlier point in the investigation the police said they had stopped everyone at the demo with a bag, this the IPCC said was "an indication that the officers did not consider whether or not they had reasonable grounds to suspect each individual may have been in possession of items to use in criminal damage".

Source

Some of the comments are great...

The irony of searching someone outside an arms fair for items likely to cause criminal damage is beautiful...
 
At work, we were starting on a computer war game. Research for this was made very difficult due to the company policy of blocking certain sites. Apart from not being able to get a picture of heather or ling for reference (it's amazing what is classed as 'pornography' on a work filter), we were pretty much doomed when it came to accessing weapons. Glad to say that sense prevailed and we can happily look at all the pics we need.

A lot of people use photographic reference in their line of work and need good quality pics of textures etc. Naturally these folks should be regarded with utmost suspicion as it's obviously only a small step from taking a picture of wall or a church door to wanting to blow up an airport.
And maybe we should watch out for people buying suspicious amounts of custard powder while we're on...have you seen how that stuff goes off?

Like I have said for years now, we're all suspects now. That's what there is to fear.
 
jimv1 said:
...it's obviously only a small step from taking a picture of wall or a church door to wanting to blow up an airport.
OMG! I'm in the process of catalogueing my photos, and today I found I did have a picture of a wall! (And it had such a nice blossoming creeper growing over it, too... :( )

And because I'm also on record as opposing Heathrow's third runway, I suppose it's Guantanamo (or its successor) for me now.... :cry:
 
rynner2 said:
jimv1 said:
...it's obviously only a small step from taking a picture of wall or a church door to wanting to blow up an airport.
OMG! I'm in the process of catalogueing my photos, and today I found I did have a picture of a wall! (And it had such a nice blossoming creeper growing over it, too... :( )

And because I'm also on record as opposing Heathrow's third runway, I suppose it's Guantanamo (or its successor) for me now.... :cry:

I'll send you a cake in a file.
 
Back
Top