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

Britain: Police State?

The weekly Poor Doors protests outside No.1 Commercial Street in Aldgate have been ongoing over the past eight months. But last Thursday, organisers Class War were told to remove their banner featuring the four major party leaders with ‘ALL FUCKING WANKERS’ slogan underneath or face arrest.

Although eager to carry out arrests over the banner, Met backed down in apparent confusion over the legalities. The clash between the Met’s reliance on public order legislation against protests and the protesters’ on European rights rulings means the outcome will have far reaching implications for protest. The Met allege the banner was offensive but despite canvassing passers by could not find anyone other than themselves who were offended – a requirement under the legislation.

Class War’s Ian Bone said: “The Met morality appears stuck in a 1960s Lady Chattersley’s Lover era – where offence is taken on behalf of one’s servants. Do they have a remit on English language usage?

“Only four years ago a photographer was acquitted after cops raided his house of a Class War ‘Cameron wanker’ poster in the window. More recently a judge ruled that swearing at a policeman was not a crime because they heard it so often. ..."

http://www.classwarparty.org.uk/press-release-londons-longest-running-protest-threat-met/
 
Dunno if this will end in a result, but at least it's slowed things down for now, update from change.org

A few weeks ago (11th March 2015) you may have heard on the news that Theresa May has decided not to make a decision on the use of water cannons in this parliament. That means that Boris will have to wait until after the general election to get a decision on the use of water cannons in England and Wales. Whilst this is not an outright victory it has gone someway to ensuring water cannons aren’t used on our streets anytime soon. It also means we have more time to lobby and influence the next set of decision makers that water cannons are a bad idea.
Thanks to everyone who wrote letters, signed the petition and generally supported the cause.
Click to expand...
 
Cops turn Download Festival into an ORWELLIAN SPY PARADISE
As if being ankle deep in muddy field, surrounded by pretend hippies seemingly re-enacting highlights of the Battle of Waterloo was bad enough, attendees of the aptly named Download Festival will be subjected to a new police facial recognition system, and surveillance of their onsite location and expenditure via the debut of RFID wristbands.

The debut surveillance technologies are a new facial recognition system being rolled out by Leicestershire Police, and Download's own RFID wristbands, provided by German RFID specialists YouChip.
Click to expand...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/0...big_brother_playground_leicestershire_police/
 
Pretend hippies? Last time I was there it was teenagers and old metallers who realised they had made an expensive mistake. I'm not surprised events like that have attracted that sort of attention from police though
 
They should all buy plain white face masks to to wear on entry..

what ever happened to privacy, maybe they should DNA test them as they go in... hey lets go the whole hog and facescan and DNA check every person in the UK and have done with it.
 
Jonfairway said:
They should all buy plain white face masks to to wear on entry..

hey lets go the whole hog and facescan and DNA check every person in the UK and have done with it.
Click to expand...

That wouldn't enable you to track their movements. thankfully, we now have RFID for that.
I've been bleating on about the survillance state for years and people would just say 'that would never happen'. Well it is happening and what's more, it's too late to do anything about it.
 
*an ancient dot matrix printer whirrs into life*
A bored looking black uniformed goon leans over and tears off the sheet before scanning across the words and snorting.
Picking up a phone next to him he waits a moment for the line to connect before grunting into the receiver "Orange alert, orange alert, pick up JimV".
 
Maybe a fly will get swatted on the ceiling and fall into the printer, and they will pick up JimX instead? :p
 
jimv1 said:
That wouldn't enable you to track their movements. thankfully, we now have RFID for that.
I've been bleating on about the survillance state for years and people would just say 'that would never happen'. Well it is happening and what's more, it's too late to do anything about it.
Click to expand...

What gets me is how quickly it happened. Less than a decade?
 
Heckler20 said:
*an ancient dot matrix printer whirrs into life*
A bored looking black uniformed goon leans over and tears off the sheet before scanning across the words and snorting.
Picking up a phone next to him he waits a moment for the line to connect before grunting into the receiver "Orange alert, orange alert, pick up JimV".
Click to expand...

Jimv1 is still safe. Seriously. I've been going on about the surveillance state here for ages and linked to many articles by the likes of Henry Porter as well as pointing out the mission and function creep of cctv and RFID. As well as referencing the Panopticon and our status of suspects instead of citizens. I gave this up around two years ago realising it was all too late. Everything an Orwellian Overseer could wish for was already in place and no-one seemed to care. The most depressing moment for me was when people who'd previously argued this was ridiculous and would never happen suddenly switched to the opinion of 'not surprising, and 'this has been going on for ages'.
We've let - no - actively given our freedom away. All we are now are Facebookunits. Targeted consumers who've commodified themselves and allowed the state to regard us as potential criminals while we continue to be monitored and kettled at the very least on a psychological level.
 
sherbetbizarre said:
Cops turn Download Festival into an ORWELLIAN SPY PARADISE

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/0...big_brother_playground_leicestershire_police/
Click to expand...
Jonfairway said:
They should all buy plain white face masks to to wear on entry..

what ever happened to privacy, maybe they should DNA test them as they go in... hey lets go the whole hog and facescan and DNA check every person in the UK and have done with it.
Click to expand...
They were all wearing KISS make-up* no doubt after having read this thread.

2722378388_c7a05ca6a9_o.jpg



* There really needs to be an "and" between those two words, don't you think?
 
This symbolises the surveillance state we live in:
article-1376826-0BA0555400000578-931_306x350.jpg
 
Though by all accounts some councils are turning off CCTV cameras to save money... which is where 1984 starts to morph into Brazil.
 
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
 
It’s easy to get lost in the technicalities of the government’s new anti-union legislation. Is it right that union ballots should require 50% turnouts before authorising a strike? Is it fair for members to have to opt-in to union political funds rather than opt-out?

By forcing us to stare at the ripples in front of us, we miss the tidal wave behind us. We miss the fact that what the Conservative government are really trying to do is kill off the trade union movement altogether.

Most of the coverage of the government’s new Trade Unions Bill has focused on the opt-in rule as a threat to Labour’s funding. But really this is not about damaging Labour. It is about damaging the basic ability of working and middle class people to campaign for good pay and employment rights.

Because the new opt-in rules will not just affect unions’ ability to fund the Labour party. They will affect their ability to fund any kind of political activity whatsoever. It will hamper any future campaigns for a living wage, or against exploitative contracts and discrimination. Basically any union campaign that can in any way be judged as political will have its funding restricted by this law.

And these restrictions will only apply to unions. Any private company that wants to fund political campaigns will continue to be free to do so without any meddling from government. Hedge funds and investment banks will still be allowed to sink their profits into the Conservative party, without the government ever forcing them to first get an opt-in from their employees.

Again, it is easy to get lost in the technicalities while missing the bigger picture. This isn’t really about ballot rules or opt-in forms. Like the lobbying bill in the last parliament, this is a naked attempt to destroy the ability of the trade union movement to ever again be a significant political force. This isn’t an attempt to get rid of Trade unions altogether but it is an attempt to neuter them. It is an attempt to turn them into a glorified version of the citizens’ advice bureau for employees. It is part of a longer-term aim to make trade union membership totally non-political like a kind of life insurance.

Under this vision you would still be able to get advice from your union, but they wouldn’t be able to campaign on your behalf. And you certainly wouldn’t be able to strike. Let’s not be in any doubt about this. The turnout thresholds in this bill are just a stepping stone to wiping out industrial action altogether.

This is not a conspiracy theory. It is a clear plan being pushed at all levels of the Conservative party. The current bill was originally championed by London mayor Boris Johnson in order to tackle strikes on the London Underground. However, his original hope was not for turnout thresholds but to effectively ban strikes altogether.

Under Johnson’s original plans and those again being championed by London Assembly Tories, unions would lose all ability to strike and would have to instead submit themselves to compulsory arbitration.

Under these plans, it would no longer be up to the collective trade union movement to negotiate their member’s pay and conditions with employers. Instead these would be decided by a judge or quango behind closed-doors. And if employees don’t like those conditions then tough luck.

It is very easy to get lost in the details, but it is the bigger picture that really matters. Most of the employee benefits we now enjoy, from paid holidays to parental leave, were fought for and won by the trade union movement. Without that movement we would all be poorer and less secure.

This Trade Unions Bill is just the latest attempt to kill off that movement. It is merely the latest slash in a death of a thousand cuts.
Click to expand...

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/comment/t...e-trade-union-movement-162734090.html#0yoxZyp
 
One of the government’s first bills will make striking virtually impossible. Sajid Javid, the new business secretary, will outlaw any strike not voted for by at least 40% of eligible union members. Turnouts must reach 50%. Current “scab” laws that ban employers from hiring temporary agency staff to fill in for strikers will be abolished.

Are trade unions too powerful? The mythology of the 1979 winter of discontent is deep-dyed in the Tory political psyche – those bodies unburied, that rubbish piled up in parks. That gave Margaret Thatcher the chance to demolish trade union rights. But along with abolition of the car park show-of-hands votes and intimidatory closed shops, went their power and influence over how national incomes are shared out.

Any analysis of the British economy over the past 40 years shows how the decline of union power since the early 1980s has coincided with the fall in the proportion of GDP that goes to pay, and the rise of profits. Boardroom pay has sky-rocketed while wages have been held down, as chief executives and directors no longer fear the effect of their pay rises on their staff.

Will the public rally to David’s assault on the unions? Cameron should beware the high number of noisy professionals

The power shift from workforce to boardroom has been phenomenally damaging. Inequality and perpetual low pay, is, says Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England, the greatest economic risk. The Davos World Economic Forum made this its key topic last year. If money is sucked out of the pockets of ordinary spenders into the profits of companies, with often foreign owners taking it abroad, or spent on luxury imports or uselessly inflating top property prices, the economy suffers. Unions played an important economic role by pulling on the other end of the rope. Without the power to strike, unions can be ignored.

Britain already has among the toughest strike laws in the EU. Unions must give seven days’ notice before a strike ballot and then wait another seven days before striking. Rules about ballots are so complex that it’s easy for employers to take out injunctions for small infringements.

Advertisement
A 40% threshold is remarkably high, since David Cameron’s government rules on just 24% of the electorate, with only 66% turning out. Why people don’t vote is a bafflement to those who do, and none so puzzling as the low turnout in strike ballots, even among professionals such as teachers. You would think everyone would have a strong view on whether to lose days of pay and disrupt their workplaces. But it is one of the vagaries of democracy that so many leave the decision to others.
Click to expand...

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...rade-unions-public-support-strike-sajid-javid
 
Equally could have gone on the Paedogeddon thread, but I'll put it herre as I think the key point is that a police officer is above the law, rather than the 'historic' abuse investigation itself.

No further action will be taken against Wiltshire's former chief constable who was found to have a "case to answer" for misconduct, because he retired.

Pat Geenty, 58, and two officers were investigated after complaints were made about the way they handled a 2008 probe into historic sex abuse claims.

Wiltshire's police commissioner said it was a "regrettable case" and Mr Geenty would have faced a misconduct hearing.

But as he retired last month, no action could be taken against him.

Mr Geenty was assistant chief constable when the complaints were made.

They related to the way Wiltshire Police dealt with allegations of historic sex abuse.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) examined claims that information had been withheld from the complainants about "the extent of the force's failings", and concluded there was a "case to answer" for misconduct.
Click to expand...

BBC

Funny how they usually seem to get busted just in time for them to pootle off.
 
They're from 1987 but it's surprising how modern they sound:
http://uair01.blogspot.nl/2015/07/don-delillo-on-modern-surveillance.html
Click to expand...

I haven't watched this yet, but as it's relevant to the thread and references historical views on surveillance:


Alan N. Shapiro, "The Relevance of 'The Prisoner' to Today's Information and Surveillance Society" -- lecture in Portmeirion, Wales at fan convention of "The Prisoner" -- April 5, 2014 (part 1 of 4)
Click to expand...

Edit: I've got a start on this now, well worth the pain of persual, and not too heavy for Saturday afternoon viewing. :)
 
Last edited:
Many members of this esteemed forum will either have an Android smartphone as an additional device for accessing the internet, or for some, this may have become their only conduit of connectivity.

By way of comment, I'm about to make an observation regarding the risks, purported/potential/actual (or all three) associated with personal online security whilst using Android smartphones.

Not just from exposed use of the internet itself- but perhaps from the software being marketed to protect you.

One such application is called "Lookout".

On checking the Ts&Cs warning page, it candidly confessesses to collecting all of your:

  • Contacts
  • Phone/text logs
  • Browser history
  • Location information
  • Financial information
  • User files content
This it shares with 'Carriers and Data Analytics' , but ostensibly not with government, social networks or advertisers
(https://www.lookout.com/legal/privacy).

The company proudly announces: "Lookout complies with the U.S. — E.U. Safe Harbor Framework. Any info collected for the purpose of delivering our service is stored on our servers in the United States, even if you are outside the United States".

It then caveats as follows, giving a degree of reassurance:

6. We May Disclose Your Information in Accordance with the Law.
Like other companies, we may disclose your information in accordance with law, for example, to (i) comply with a law, regulation, or legal request; (ii) protect the safety of any person; (iii) address potential violations of our Privacy Policy or Terms of Service; (iv) investigate fraud, security, or technical issues; or (v) protect Lookout’s rights or property, our employees, users and the public.

Conversely, the policy then goes on to say:

However, we strongly believe that you have a right to know if we are required by law to disclose your information. As such, before we disclose your Information in response to a law enforcement request (for example, a subpoena or court order), we will notify you at the email listed in your account, unless (a) we are prohibited from doing so or (b) in emergency cases where notice could create a risk of injury or death to an identifiable individual or group of individuals, or the case involves potential harm to minors. In such cases, we might delay notice to you. Furthermore, nothing in this Privacy Policy is meant to limit any legal defenses or objections that you may have to a third party’s, including the government’s, request to disclose your information.

If anyone can convince me that this medicine is better than the disease, I'm ready to hear their reasoning, for them to convince me that I'm not being ridiculously-paranoid.

And if all of this is not a conspiracy, why does it appear from every angle, to be precisely just that?
 
The wife of a UK-based Chinese dissident arrested last week for waving placards at the visiting Chinese president has said the couple still do not know why he was detained or when computer equipment seized from their home will be returned.

Johanna Zhang, who is married to Shao Jiang, a survivor of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre who left China in 2003, said she had been unable to even make contact with the Metropolitan police detectives who searched their home after Shao’s arrest.

Shao said last week he had been reminded of prior treatment in China after Met officers tackled him as he held two small placards in front of a motorcade carryingXi Jinping to a banquet in London during the Chinese president’s state visit to Britain.

Also arrested were two Tibetan women: Sonam Choden, 31, and Jamphel Lhamo, 33, who had been waving a Tibetan flag at Xi’s car.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...rotester-shao-jiang-met-police-london-arrests
 
A schoolboy has been questioned by anti-terrorism police because he wore a "Free Palestine" badge to school.

Rahmaan Mohammadi's teachers at Challney High School for Boys in Luton referred him to police under Prevent - the controversial government anti-radicalisation programme, which critics have claimed is heavy-handed, discriminatory and ineffective.

As well as wearing pro-Palestine badges and wristbands, Mohammadi was in possession of a leaflet advocating Palestinian rights by pressure group Friends of al-Aqsa. He had also asked for permission to fundraise for children affected by the Israeli occupation.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...for-wearing-pro-palestine-badge-a6873656.html
 
Not great, this seems to have been extended to cover websites and services that aren't actually illegal at all:

Powers for the police to access everyone’s web browsing histories and to hack into their phones are to be expanded under the latest version of the snooper’s charter legislation.
The extension of police powers contained in the investigatory powers bill published on Tuesday indicates the determination of the home secretary, Theresa May, to get her controversial legislation on to the statute book by the end of this year in spite of sweeping criticisms by three separate parliamentary committees in the past month.
Click to expand...

Allow police to access all web browsing records in specific crime investigations, beyond the illegal websites and communications services specified in the original draft bill.
• Extend the use of state remote computer hacking from the security services to the police in cases involving a “threat to life” or missing persons. This can include cases involving “damage to somebody’s mental health”, but will be restricted to use by the National Crime Agency and a small number of major police forces.
Click to expand...

Guardian
 
Could also have gone in Dumb Cops, but I suppose there is a more dangerous precedent being set here:

Gullible Essex Police are now using junk science lie detectors

A polygraph, colloquially known as a lie-detector test, measures the physiological responses of subjects when interrogated. The technology was invented in 1921, by John Larson, who was both a medical student and police officer in Berkeley, California.

For almost the entirety of the polygraph's existence it has been criticised as unscientific, and in 2003 the US National Academy of Science published a report into the technology behind the polygraph which dismissed the evidence of its "validity for security uses" as "scanty and scientifically weak".
Click to expand...

They're rolling it out for sex offenders - expect the usual remit creep that we've seen with everything else.

TheRegister
 
A while ago Private Eye highlighted the silicon snake oil salesman who was selling his 'vocal lie detector' to dole offices, with the suggestion that ultimately they would be used on employees. 'Thinking Allowed' also had a feature on profiling at Airports and Stations, with the observation that people who know they are being profiled, will display signs identical to those of guilt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top