Britain: Police State?

[lupinwick]

Perhaps its not class or at least not intentionally, but mention single teen-age mum and I suspect most folks will imagine some kid from a rundown council estate.

 

[Anonymous]

Eugenics (poss. wrong term), only allowing good middle-class folks the right to have kids?

Is Blair actually attached to this reality?

i'm not sure it's a class issue. eugenics has more to do nature rather than nurture which this is designed to address. i think there are serious questions regarding state intervention in the lives of people who aren't able to handle their freedoms responsibly but i'm not sure how blair is going to address this is in real-time, as it were.

He won't need to - he will just say he will, start an initiative which will not work but will cost a lot of money, then let it run out of steam.

It is a desperate measure indeed - and this coupled with his refusal to say when he will go is just adding to it all.

Is he trying to make a name for himself? Is he trying to get on to the Independant's 'Good List'?

 

[crunchy5]

i think there are serious questions regarding state intervention in the lives of people who aren't able to handle their freedoms responsibly but i'm not sure how blair is going to address this is in real-time, as it were.

Quite an extreme view to take on peoples right to be free, just how right wing are you Ted.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

i think there are serious questions regarding state intervention in the lives of people who aren't able to handle their freedoms responsibly but i'm not sure how blair is going to address this is in real-time, as it were.

Quite an extreme view to take on peoples right to be free, just how right wing are you Ted.

you're right, i should leave them to their own devices. no level of interference should be tolerated. i'll then expect a tax rebate and accept no mitigating factors for any future personal problems like ill health or crime which require social provision.

 

[Jerry_B]

Ted - I think the problem phrase is 'people who aren't able to handle their freedoms responsibly'. That does sound slightly odd, I must say.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Ted - I think the problem phrase is 'people who aren't able to handle their freedoms responsibly'. That does sound slightly odd, I must say.

ok then i'll rephrase - people who, because of their choices, end up requiring provision by the state (us) to live their life or whose actions force the state to intervene on behalf of others affected by their choices.

 

[Jerry_B]

But then again isn't the measure Tony Blair seems to be advocating just gumph because he's looking for a certain type of (what he thinks may be) a populist policy? After all, trying to steer the birth control of a certain small section of society seems to be pandering to Daily Mail readers more than anything else. It seems sort of similar to 'immigrant' scares that tend to run just before elections - soft targets based on nebulous social issues that may or may not exist.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

But then again isn't the measure Tony Blair seems to be advocating just gumph because he's looking for a certain type of (what he thinks may be) a populist policy? After all, trying to steer the birth control of a certain small section of society seems to be pandering to Daily Mail readers more than anything else. It seems sort of similar to 'immigrant' scares that tend to run just before elections - soft targets based on nebulous social issues that may or may not exist.

i think that's exactly what blair's doing. he's flying a kite not because he doesn't believe in the policy but because he knows his party won't go for it.

 

[lupinwick]

Thought I'd have a enough look into this after work.

Tony Blair has said it is possible to identify problem children who could grow up to be a potential "menace to society" even before they are born.

Setting out plans for state intervention to prevent babies born into high-risk families becoming problem teenagers of the future, the prime minister said teenage mothers could be forced to accept state help before giving birth, as part of a clampdown on antisocial behaviour.

Mr Blair defended the need for state intervention and said action could even be taken "pre-birth" if necessary as families with drug and alcohol problems were being identified too late.

And a little bit later...

The Conservatives have objected to this course, saying the government should not try to run people's lives.

Conservative policy director Oliver Letwin said: "The answer is not more state intervention. It is to encourage the social enterprise, the voluntary sector, community groups, to help people without trying to run their lives for them."

One thinktank suggested it was almost "genetic determinism" to suggest children could turn out to be troublemakers before they were born.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1862706,00.html

Distasteful in the extreme. Bugger the reasons as to WHY people have problems and forget the idea that not all anti-social menaces come from bad parents.

In the end, why suggest this kind of crap if its a definite no go? Event the Tory party don't like it

 

[Dingo667]

As much as I loath lazy benefit receiving 10year old single mums myself, I still think that the government should keep well away from the way people live. By all means stop their benefits, put chavlings into boot camp or whatever so that people can actually "learn" that their behaviour is wrong and maybe one day it will hit home. Also let society as a whole help bringing up kids by letting people tell them off [like in the good old days, where you didn't get stabbed if you told a little urchin off].
I hope this makes sense, basically teaching manners by not letting the wrong behaviour "win".
When it comes to governments, all they really need to know is that we all exist and then deal with problems when they arise. Trying to preemt future behaviour is a very dangerous idea.
Nobody can predict how anyone grows up. I have known middleclass kids ending up in jail for GBH and have known [quite a few] working class kids who managed to get to university [all on their own backs, no help from their parents].
I hate interfering governments so much, there aren't enough words for it.
At the moment it seems anyway that if you have a baby it is the governments child and you are only rearing it for them [whilst not being allowed to "smack" their posession, give it junk food or fail to sent it to school]. Man if they are so desperate why not take kids away from parents and rear them in governmental institutions, brainwashing them with their ideas etc rather than doing it sneakily.

Kids nowadays also seem to grow up dependend. There is almost no more freedom to learn through experience as everything that might be dangerous is simply banned.
Freedom, give me freedom and justice. Thats all.

 

[morningstar667]

Kids nowadays also seem to grow up dependend. There is almost no more freedom to learn through experience as everything that might be dangerous is simply banned.
Freedom, give me freedom and justice. Thats all.

Very true :yeay:

 

[crunchy5]

By all means stop their benefits, put chavlings into boot camp or whatever so that people can actually "learn" that their behaviour is wrong and maybe one day it will hit home.

Disagree strongly with the above and whilst getting the jokes agree strongly with the below

When it comes to governments, all they really need to know is that we all exist and then deal with problems when they arise. Trying to preemt future behaviour is a very dangerous idea.
Nobody can predict how anyone grows up. I have known middleclass kids ending up in jail for GBH and have known [quite a few] working class kids who managed to get to university [all on their own backs, no help from their parents].
I hate interfering governments so much, there aren't enough words for it.
At the moment it seems anyway that if you have a baby it is the governments child and you are only rearing it for them [whilst not being allowed to "smack" their posession, give it junk food or fail to sent it to school]. Man if they are so desperate why not take kids away from parents and rear them in governmental institutions, brainwashing them with their ideas etc rather than doing it sneakily.

Kids nowadays also seem to grow up dependend. There is almost no more freedom to learn through experience as everything that might be dangerous is simply banned.
Freedom, give me freedom and justice. Thats all.

 

[nissemus]

This is comment received by The Register following its story about a school fingerprinting its students:

I wanted to hire a car this weekend from AVIS car at Stansted airport. Apparently I need to provide a thumbprint for my security.

See excerpt from booking conditions below:

Stansted Airport, Essex, *In partnership with Essex Police, Avis and all other car rental operators at Stansted Airport require a thumbprint impression for non-corporate rentals. This is a security measure to minimise identity fraud for the safety of our renters.

 

[mejane]

Surely thumbprints can only be an aid to identity if your print is already on record? What if the person hiring the car had already stolen your identity? :?:

Does anyone know anyone who has been a victim of this heinous crime? Did it cause any long-term problems? If I was conspiricy-minded, I might suspect that "identity theft" was just a marketing ploy by the makers of paper-shredding machines.

On the subject of Blair's increasingingly desperate attempts to prove he's still human (in the view of the Daily Mail), according by the people I work with (mostly what the above publication would call chavs), teenage girls now routinely receive contraceptive implants so that they are free to go ahead and get drunk/stoned without having to worry about the consequences...

Jane.

 

[lupinwick]

Depends on how its cross-referenced. If a convicted criminal (ie. fingerprints already taken) attempts to steal you ID it could be flagged. Although I doubt a search through the database would be quick enough.

From the cynical point of view it may well be a fingerprint gathering exercise via the backdoor.

 

[stu neville]

My local car dealer takes thumbprints of anyone buying a motor by credit card or cash (not finance, cos there are a raft of other checks and verifications involved.) Apparently a lot of the reputable ones do so in my area, especially the ones that deal with a lot of cheap used cars. It helps prevent "ringers" and other car-related crime, so in turn actually benefits the legitimate dealers.

 

[techybloke666]

They take your Thumb print even if you pay CASH for a car !!!

Hey maybe Currys and Comet should consider this when they sell you a TV to make sure that the BBC have your dabs on record and can't escape the TV licensing.

Great headline Currys crack down on Single parent mothers TV license dodging.

 

[stu neville]

They take your Thumb print even if you pay CASH for a car !!!

Yesssss, because most crims deal in cash. They tend not to be overly keen on paper trails and such.

 

[lupinwick]

Great headline Currys crack down on Single parent mothers TV license dodging.

Don't - you'l give them ideas!

Out of interest - what happens to the prints? How are they used, for a one off check against police records or just held?

 

[stu neville]

I imagine they just hold on to them. Bristol's had a serious car crime problem for years (second to London), particularly with dodgy motors, so a lot of the dealers are covering their own arses these days.

 

[techybloke666]

Yesssss, because most crims deal in cash. They tend not to be overly keen on paper trails and such.

so basically were back to assuming someone is a criminal becouse of a certain type of behaviour pattern.

using Cash

so all people who use SHOCK HORROR the queens cash with her head on it, which has been used for centuries as the given way to pay for items is now deemed to be the act of a possible criminal.

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek

Hey we could sort all these things if we went to a cashless society with implants to use for buying and cross referenced to a massive identity database !!!

hang on silly me thats whats already happening.

 

[Jerry_B]

But then again it's just some bloke protecting his business in a particular way... Hardly the stuff of a police state, eh?

 

[lupinwick]

Probably not. But then again (I'd have to check up on this) it may be fall foul of the data protection act. I know some of the other fingerprinting schemes came unstuck because of this (primarily in schools though.)

 

[crunchy5]

My local car dealer takes thumbprints of anyone buying a motor by credit card or cash (not finance, cos there are a raft of other checks and verifications involved.) Apparently a lot of the reputable ones do so in my area, especially the ones that deal with a lot of cheap used cars. It helps prevent "ringers" and other car-related crime, so in turn actually benefits the legitimate dealers.

I hope the information gained is stored in accordance with the data protection act

 

[techybloke666]

But then again it's just some bloke protecting his business in a particular way... Hardly the stuff of a police state, eh?

I certainly hope you are right Jerry for all our sakes.

I know one thing for sure mind

If I walked in a car showroom with 20 k in my pocket to buy a car and was asked for my prints as security I would be shopping with my 20 k elsewhere 20 mins later.

 

[lupinwick]

Possibly closely followed!

 

[Quake42]

Probably not. But then again (I'd have to check up on this) it may be fall foul of the data protection act. I know some of the other fingerprinting schemes came unstuck because of this (primarily in schools though.)

The thing with the DPA is that you can do pretty much whatever you want provided you have the data subject's consent. The school schemes you talk about fell foul of the Act, IIRC, because the issue of parental consent was unclear. In this case you could simply walk out and hire a car somewhere else if you did not want to give your consent to the thumbprinting.

There is something in the Act about not storing more data than is necessary, but it's all fairly nebulous. TBH the DPA is pretty toothless in respect of protecting privacy. It's brilliant for pissing off large organisations with Subject Access Requests though!

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

But then again it's just some bloke protecting his business in a particular way... Hardly the stuff of a police state, eh?

I certainly hope you are right Jerry for all our sakes.

I know one thing for sure mind

If I walked in a car showroom with 20 k in my pocket to buy a car and was asked for my prints as security I would be shopping with my 20 k elsewhere 20 mins later.

and presumably if you got robbed on the way there you would instruct the police not to use any of their technologically driven methods of detection or registers.

to be honest i'm quite surprised that anywhere would even accept such huge sums of cash nowadays. it doesn't make any sense for either party really. why would you want to withdraw £20,000 and risk losing it or getting robbed when you could write a cheque or pay with a debit/credit card?

i think you're confusing the act of someone with a whole livelihood to lose performing a check with being charged, tried and punished. anyone who would refuse to submit to that kind of inspection is either a criminal or someone seeking to pepper the mundanity of their life with an imagined sense of their own value to a conspiracy.

 

[Quake42]

anyone who would refuse to submit to that kind of inspection is either a criminal or someone seeking to pepper the mundanity of their life with an imagined sense of their own value to a conspiracy.

I have to disagree very strongly. I hate the whole "innocent have nothing to fear" argument.

There is absolutely no reason why someone entering into a commercial transaction should have to go through a procedure which is more normally associated with the criminal justice system.

I would be very, very happy to see the DPA beefed up to make it illegal to ask for private companies to ask for this type of information.

 

[techybloke666]

and presumably if you got robbed on the way there you would instruct the police not to use any of their technologically driven methods of detection or registers.

to be honest i'm quite surprised that anywhere would even accept such huge sums of cash nowadays. it doesn't make any sense for either party really. why would you want to withdraw £20,000 and risk losing it or getting robbed when you could write a cheque or pay with a debit/credit card?

i think you're confusing the act of someone with a whole livelihood to lose performing a check with being charged, tried and punished. anyone who would refuse to submit to that kind of inspection is either a criminal or someone seeking to pepper the mundanity of their life with an imagined sense of their own value to a conspiracy.

thats a totally unfair post mate

If someone other than I had posted my 20k post on here you wouldnt have posted such a " but your a paranoid fool" retort

All I am saying is people are free as far as I know to pay by whatever means the prefer.

To ask for identity in the form of Biometrics to buy or rent a car paying with cash seems over the top.
By all means ask for 3 types of ID Bills , birth certificate mayeb drivers number, cross check the lot if you need to, but biomentric data should not be so freely given or requested.

Look at it this way chum

if you were finger printed to rent a car and then the shops computer records are stolen or the comupter itself was stolen your biomentrics could be used to steal your identity in a far more difficult way to sort out than a pin number change.