Britain: Police State?

[jefflovestone]

Police to seize cars playing loud music
By Laura Clout
Last Updated: 1:26am BST 15/08/2007

Drivers who cruise the streets with loud music blaring risk losing more than their hearing. Police in Birmingham have pledged to confiscate their cars if they refuse to turn down the volume.

I expect this is one police power that most people would support!

(But the reporter's name is one to savour in this context! )

I've never actually understood why drivers feel the need for this. They can't do it out of enjoyment as loud music in such a small space is pretty uncomfortable surely (and I say that as someone who has gigged fairly regularly for 20 years)? Also, surely it's dangerous as it must be distracting?

 

[ghostdog19]

I've never actually understood why drivers feel the need for this. They can't do it out of enjoyment as loud music in such a small space is pretty uncomfortable surely (and I say that as someone who has gigged fairly regularly for 20 years)? Also, surely it's dangerous as it must be distracting?

plus the bass is always so loud its distorted.

I think it's a dick size issue.

 

[JamesWhitehead]

If people are going to share their choice of music with me, I feel I should be able to comment on that choice with the same degree of consideration for their comfort.

The problem is how to carry so many little bags of vomit and poo to get me through the day's criticism duties.

:splat:

 

[jefflovestone]

plus the bass is always so loud its distorted. I think it's a dick size issue.

Late at night, I feel these cars coming before I actually hear them.

It must be a nightmare to actually be in one of these cars. It's weird; if I'd spent that much money on an amplifier, speakers and player I'd been in two minds about advertising the fact.

These and the pricks on public transport who want to 'share' their poxy music played on their mobile phone. :x I'm pretty sure that at one time it was an offence of some kind to play either a radio or a musical instrument on a bus. They should hang the severed heads of miscreants from the doorways of Phones 4 U and Argos as a warning to these pricks.

[/Angry of Ashton]

 

[Yithian]

Just a thought, but if we live in a police-state (or nearly), as some claim. Why is there so much casual everyday crime? We must be the most inefficient police-state in the world!

 

[Quake42]

Just a thought, but if we live in a police-state (or nearly), as some claim. Why is there so much casual everyday crime? We must be the most inefficient police-state in the world!

I suspect part of the answer is because the police, like everyone else nowadays, are almost entirely target driven. Like anyone else, they will look for the easiest way to meet those targets.

Catch speeding drivers from the comfort of a patrol car or spend hours patrolling Oxford Street in the hope you might catch a pickpocket? The first is far easier and will likely result in a large number of busts - the latter will be tiresome and you may have nothing to show for it at the end of the day.

Plus I suspect others in the judicial system may have figured out that it is easier to collect fines from otherwise "respectable" people caught speeding, littering or using the wrong wheelie-bin than from violent and chaotic itinterants who probably won't even show up for court.

The outcome is that the police effectively withdraw from addressing low-level crimes of disorder and nuisance, leading to the lawless feel that many see in their neighborhoods.

 

[jefflovestone]

Just a thought, but if we live in a police-state (or nearly), as some claim. Why is there so much casual everyday crime? We must be the most inefficient police-state in the world!

Because intent isn't necessarily the same as, for want of a better word, execution.

 

[Yithian]

Fair responses.

As you were...

 

[ArthurASCII]

I suspect part of the answer is because the police, like everyone else nowadays, are almost entirely target driven. Like anyone else, they will look for the easiest way to meet those targets.

It may be the public perception that the Police are "target driven" but I haven't seen any evidence of it in my police force. Statistics are very important of course - one needs to collect them to identify "hotspot" areas in order to target resources efficiently and to show the tax payer how their money is being spent.

Catch speeding drivers from the comfort of a patrol car or spend hours patrolling Oxford Street in the hope you might catch a pickpocket? The first is far easier and will likely result in a large number of busts - the latter will be tiresome and you may have nothing to show for it at the end of the day.

Hopefully, the introduction of Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) will result in a reduction of street crime over time. A regular presence on the street and an in-depth knowledge of the local area coupled with intelligence gathered from the local community will help to identify offenders and act as a deterrent.

Plus I suspect others in the judicial system may have figured out that it is easier to collect fines from otherwise "respectable" people caught speeding, littering or using the wrong wheelie-bin than from violent and chaotic itinterants who probably won't even show up for court.

I see little evidence of this (although I readily concede it is popular folklore). Speeding, littering, using the wrong wheelie-bin etc are, I'm sure you will agree, anti-social acts that annoy many members of the public. Nowadays, on our local "beats" we canvass the residents to find out what their top three concerns are, and prioritise our resources on tackling them (Ho hum...stats again, but at least we're collecting them from the people, not being led by the nose by an often agenda-led Media).

The outcome is that the police effectively withdraw from addressing low-level crimes of disorder and nuisance, leading to the lawless feel that many see in their neighborhoods.

Community-based policing aims to address the very feeling you identify by the creation of dedicated "Safer Community Teams (SCTs)" (of which, as a newly-hatched PCSO, I am a part) who will patrol their local areas offering advice and providing reassurance, work with offenders and their families to try and change offending behaviour and alter attitudes.
Crime rates in my area are falling month on month, but the perception of crime is, sadly, that there is an increase. Given time and resources, I am confident that SCTs will have an impact.

Given the limited resources available, is there a better alternative?

 

[lupinwick]

I suspect that this isn't really news but rather of interest to those who worry about who can access your data and under what jurisdiction. It highlights quite nicely the problems of nationalistic laws when faced with a technology which transcends national boundaries.

A new law swept through Congress by the US government before the summer recess is to give American security agencies unprecedented powers to spy on British citizens without a warrant.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was approved by Congress earlier this month to help the National Security Agency in the fight against terrorism. But it has now emerged that the bill gives the security services powers to intercept all telephone calls, internet traffic and emails made by British citizens across US-based networks.

As much of the world's telecoms networks and internet infrastructure runs through the US, the new act will give the security services huge scope for monitoring and intercepting Britons' private communications, as well as those of other foreign citizens. The new act has led to fears it will see a huge increase in the number of British citizens being extradited to the US.

'Just because it happens to pass through the US they claim they can do whatever they want,' said Tony Bunyan, director of Statewatch, the civil rights group that campaigns against state surveillance. 'Where is the EU saying, "What's going on here, we've got to protect the rights of our citizens?"'

The Dutch Liberal Democrat MEP Sophie in 't Veld has tabled a series of questions demanding answers from the EU parliament. In a statement to European politicians, In 't Veld warns the US law will 'directly apply to EU citizens and constitutes a major violation of privacy and civil liberties'.

Source

This would be a problem for everyone, not jusy the UK citizen. Of course if you have nothing to hide then why worry about what information the various security services are collating about you.

 

[jefflovestone]

I suspect that this isn't really news but rather of interest to those who worry about who can access your data and under what jurisdiction. It highlights quite nicely the problems of nationalistic laws when faced with a technology which transcends national boundaries.

A new law swept through Congress by the US government before the summer recess is to give American security agencies unprecedented powers to spy on British citizens without a warrant.

Ugh. Not only am I imagining a boot stamping on my face for ever, the boot was sold in Wal Mart and the owner's breath smells of McDonalds.

2007, I fucking hate you.

 

[Analogue Boy]

I suspect that this isn't really news but rather of interest to those who worry about who can access your data and under what jurisdiction. It highlights quite nicely the problems of nationalistic laws when faced with a technology which transcends national boundaries.

A new law swept through Congress by the US government before the summer recess is to give American security agencies unprecedented powers to spy on British citizens without a warrant.

Ugh. Not only am I imagining a boot stamping on my face for ever, the boot was sold in Wal Mart and the owner's breath smells of McDonalds.

2007, I fucking hate you.

Just don't put that on a t-shirt.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/camb ... 943734.stm

 

[lupinwick]

Hmmm, so that would mean the Sisters of Mercy t-shirt with "Fuck me and marry me young" on it is also a no-no. Can I use the same offensive argument against the FCUK logos (and all other corporate logos come to thick of it)?

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Hmmm, so that would mean the Sisters of Mercy t-shirt with "Fuck me and marry me young" on it is also a no-no. Can I use the same offensive argument against the FCUK logos (and all other corporate logos come to thick of it)?

Many years ago an Inspiral Carpets fan got in trouble for wearing a t-shirt with the legend 'Cool As Fuck'. I think he got prosecuted for it. If anything there's probably more leniency with offensive language on clothing than there was in the past (the FCUK logo being a case in point).

 

[Jerry_B]

I remember that incident, Ted. Always thought it odd, seeing as at the time you could see some people wearing Mudhoney t-shirts with 'Fuck Me I'm Sick' emblazoned on them

 

[jefflovestone]

I find all these t-shirt complaints weird. In about 1980 I had a Madness t-shirt that said 'Fuck Art, Let's Dance' on it and around the same time had Dead Kennedys shirt with 'Too Drunk to Fuck' on it. I was only 12ish and whilst my mother drew the line at washing them or ironing them - which lead me to doing all my own washing from that point onwards and discovering I could iron shirts better than my mother anyway - I never had any problems at all with them.

The only time I had any problems with anything like that was at school when I had a Stiff Little Fingers patch on my bag with two fingers as a logo. Which was fair enough as it really wasn't appropriate for school.

 

[Analogue Boy]

Ooooh. you'll be wanting one of these then.

http://www.toymania.com/news/messages/2922.shtml

Or not.

 

[jefflovestone]

Ooooh. you'll be wanting one of these then.

http://www.toymania.com/news/messages/2922.shtml

Or not.

The latter. :lol:

 

[Quake42]

I find all these t-shirt complaints weird. In about 1980 I had a Madness t-shirt that said 'Fuck Art, Let's Dance' on it and around the same time had Dead Kennedys shirt with 'Too Drunk to Fuck' on it.

Complaints crop up from time to time - I too remember the Inspiral Carpets fan and more recently a Cradle of Filth fan was convicted of wearing an (admittedly, gratuitously and pointlessly) offensive t-shirt.

 

[Yithian]

Do you think this is deliberately profound?

The Sid Vicious Kubrick is a single-boxed Kubrick that replicates the doomed Sex Pistols member in all his punkish glory. It measures approximately 2.5" tall and can be broken down to its component parts.

 

[Analogue Boy]

Do you think this is deliberately profound?

The Sid Vicious Kubrick is a single-boxed Kubrick that replicates the doomed Sex Pistols member in all his punkish glory. It measures approximately 2.5" tall and can be broken down to its component parts.

I know I listen to Sandi Thom's 'I wish I was punk rocker with flowers in my hair' and think Sid Vicious died for THIS?

 

[OneWingedBird]

i suspect he died for being a stupid bastard who shot up heroin... but back at the plot...

...i wasn't sure whether to drop this here or in dumbest cops... this is just rank incompetance:

Boy mistaken for terror suspect

A seven-year-old boy from Lancashire has been mistaken for a terrorist suspect at three airports during a family holiday, relatives have said.

Javaid Iqbal's name is similar to that of a 39-year-old Pakistani man who was arrested after the attack on the World Trade Centre in 2001.

The boy's name raised a security alert on airport computers in Manchester, Orlando and Philadelphia.

His family, who live in Blackburn, said they would not be changing his name.

'Not fair'

Speaking about the experience Javaid's father Nadeem Iqbal said that the security services should take a more sensible approach.

"A suspect's date of birth should also be included on the security database," Mr Iqbal said.

"We do appreciate the security checks at Manchester, but this is not fair for someone who is seven years old."

The family faced delays at Manchester, Orlando and Philadelphia airports.

The 39-year-old Pakistani man was never charged over the attacks, but was deported from the United States of America.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lanc ... 955941.stm

 

[lupinwick]

Poor kid, certainly a FFS moment.

 

[Timble2]

More evidence that THEY are watching you. The Guardian. However, the idea of tasering people for dropping litter or peeing in the street seems a good one...

Eye in the sky: police use drone to spy on V festival


· Suspicious behaviour monitored from above
· Privacy fear as emergency services plan wider use

James Randerson, science correspondent
Tuesday August 21, 2007
The Guardian

Police used a remote-controlled spy drone to watch crowds at the V festival at the weekend, the first time the technology has been used at a major public event.
The 70cm-wide flying surveillance device, fitted with high-resolution still and colour video cameras as well as infrared night vision capability, was used to keep tabs on people thought to be acting suspiciously in car parks and to gather intelligence on individuals in the crowd.

Staffordshire police said the drone's images did not lead directly to any arrests, but one reason for using it had been to deter would-be thieves. It was not flown over the main arena because of fears that a crash might cause injuries.
The battery-operated drone's four carbon-fibre rotors are so quiet they cannot be heard from the ground once it is higher than 50 metres, and at 100 metres up it cannot be seen with the naked eye. It can fly 500 metres high, but the Civil Aviation Authority has set an operating limit of 120 metres. The vehicle, which takes off vertically, can be flown even when out of sight, because it beams images back to video goggles worn by the operator.

Since May, Merseyside police have been using two drones - originally developed by a German company for military use - to police public order situations and prevent antisocial behaviour. One tactic is to fly the drone over groups of young people causing a nuisance in parks. The force has also used it for covert surveillance.

The West Midlands fire service plans to use drones to get a bird's eye view of buildings on fire. "Being able to look down on the scene will allow us to get a full picture of the incident and the surrounding environment, which will aid incident commanders to make vital, potentially life-saving decisions," said the deputy chief fire officer, Vij Randeniya.

The Metropolitan police is interested in using drones to police the Olympics. Firearms officers also believe they could be useful in a standoff with armed criminals

MW Power, the company that distributes the technology in the UK, plans to improve the drone's capability by adding a so-called "smart water" spray - a liquid infused with unique artificial DNA sequences which can be squirted on to a suspect from above. It infuses their clothes and skin and the DNA code can be used later to identify them.

There is no legal barrier preventing a private security firm or a paparazzo photographer from using the technology, but MW Power said that it was only licensing the vehicle to customers from the military or emergency services. It costs less than £1,000 a month to lease - an amount that would buy less than an hour's use of a conventional helicopter.

Some experts fear it represents an unwarranted intrusion of privacy. "We should find out whether the public wants this," said Noel Sharkey, an expert in robotics at Sheffield University who is worried about the increasing use of robotic vehicles in military conflicts and policing. While most people would support its use to catch car thieves, the technology could be put to more draconian uses in future, he said.

"How long will it be before someone gets Tasered from the air for dropping litter, or even for relieving themselves down an alleyway under cover of night?"

· The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and clarifications column, Wednesday August 22 2007. "Smart water", the security spray mentioned above, is not infused with artificial DNA as was claimed, but with chemicals that give each batch of the liquid a unique identity.

 

[lupinwick]

Deterrent? Although the counter argument is quite interesting

But Steve Swain, who served for years with the London Metropolitan Police and its counter-terror operations, doubts the power of cameras to deter crime.

"I don't know of a single incident where CCTV has actually been used to spot, apprehend or detain offenders in the act," he said, referring to the London system. Swain now works for Control Risk, an international security firm.

Asked about their role in possibly stopping acts of terror, he said pointedly: "The presence of CCTV is irrelevant for those who want to sacrifice their lives to carry out a terrorist act."

So at least its not just the UK then, although its interesting to here the views of someone who has been involved in this country.
Kelly disagreed, pointing out that it is practically impossible to know what has been deterred. "We don't know acts that may have been planned that -- because of the surveillance and deterrence systems that are in place -- did not go forward."

Swain does believe the cameras have great value in investigation work. He also said they are necessary to reassure the public that law enforcement is being aggressive.

"You need to do this piece of theater so that if the terrorists are looking at you, they can see that you've got some measures in place," he said.

Privacy advocates said they are concerned about the possible abuse of surveillance power.

Source

 

[rynner2]

Outrage at 500,000 DNA database mistakes
By Toby Helm, Chief Political Correspondent
Last Updated: 1:16am BST 27/08/2007

Civil liberties campaigners and MPs have raised doubts about the national DNA database after the Home Office confirmed it contained more than 500,000 false or wrongly recorded names.

Suspects arrested over any imprisonable offence, including rape and murder, can have their DNA held even if they are not charged or are acquitted.

The database, the biggest in the world, contains about four million names.

But it has been dogged by problems. Statistics released by the Home Office show it contains around 550,000 files with wrong or misspelt names.

Lynne Featherstone, a Liberal Democrat frontbencher, told The Daily Telegraph that she wanted a full parliamentary inquiry into the "shocking" number of errors.

"What lies behind these statistics? Is it the police just accept the 'say-so' of those whose DNA they are taking and don't check their names and addresses?" she said.

"While the use of DNA can obviously be vital in solving crimes, anything that raises questions about the credibility of the base is not acceptable."

It is understood that some of the errors have been caused by people deliberately giving someone else's name - or names of people who do not exist. The database, which police are determined to expand, also contains spelling errors and other inaccuracies.

Another source of concern to opponents, shown in the figures, is that the system has the DNA profiles of about 150,000 children, many of whom were arrested by police but found to be innocent.

Shami Chakrabarti, the director of civil rights group Liberty, said the disclosure raised questions about police plans to expand the database to include information about those suspected of far less serious offences, such as dropping litter or dodging rail fares.

"It is bad enough that we have a DNA database stuffed with innocents not charged with any offence, containing too many children and too great a percentage of ethnic minorities," she said.

"Now it turns out we don't know the accuracy of the data. How many Postman Pats and Donald Ducks have entries on a system worthy of the Keystone Cops?"

Ministers accept the system is suffering teething problems but insist it is vital in solving crimes, some of which have remained open for decades.

In a case in November 2005, a 50-year-old builder was found guilty of a murder and rape that he committed in Essex 28 years ago.

He was stopped for drink- driving in 2004 and his DNA matched a sample taken from the original crime scene.

http://tinyurl.com/ysq26n

 

[Analogue Boy]

Having not been in the dubious postion of being asked to provide a DNA sample I would be interested to know under what conditions they are taken and what precautions exist to prevent contamination of samples already stored.

In a 2004 report, there are clear concerns about contamination of samples providing criminals with a loophole of a reduced sentence.

DNA contamination and errors at the State Patrol crime labs are recurring problems, an investigation by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has found.

Forensic scientists contaminated tests or made other mistakes while handling DNA evidence in at least 23 cases involving major crimes over the last three years, according to State Patrol and court records.

The list of DNA testing errors, uncovered through public-records requests and interviews with defense attorneys and experts, offers an unusual glimpse into what can go wrong. Crime labs across the country are struggling with similar problems but documented evidence has been hard to come by.

The State Patrol cases reveal that the technology has an Achilles' heel: human error.

Forensic scientists tainted tests with their own DNA in eight of the 23 cases. They made mistakes in six others, from throwing out evidence swabs to misreading results, fingering the wrong rape suspect. Tests were contaminated by DNA from unrelated cases in three examinations, and between evidence in the same case in another. The source of contamination in five other tests is unknown.

Every cell in the human body contains a copy of a person's unique DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, a microscopic foot-long strand that determines eye color, height and other inherited characteristics. A DNA match is considered infallible proof of guilt or innocence in many crimes.

Sophisticated DNA testing has played a crucial role in high-profile cases, including the crime lab's work in helping put Green River Killer Gary Ridgway behind bars for life last year and cracking a number of "cold-case" murders.

Crime lab officials here and elsewhere don't like to talk about the fact that the same test that can link someone to a crime scene with a few minuscule cells left on a doorknob can also be contaminated by a passing sneeze. Or that DNA tests are only as reliable as the humans doing them -- a troubling prospect when dealing with evidence that has the power to exonerate suspects or imprison them for life.

"The amazing thing is how many screw-ups they have for a technique that they go into court and say is infallible," said William C. Thompson, a forensic expert and professor of criminology and law at the University of California-Irvine, who reviewed the incidents at the request of the P-I.

"What we're seeing in these 23 cases is really the tip of the iceberg."

 

[lupinwick]

Accuracy of at least 99.999999% in the database please (a couple of extra decimal places would be good). Otherwise don't bother.

 

[Dingo667]

I just imagined that they would ask for my DNA even though I was innocent. I really wouldn't want to give it, what makes me extremely uneasy is that I wouldn't have a say in the matter. To me is almost like rape, not in a sexual sense but in the taking of something extremely personal.
If I had committed a crime, then I can see the point but taking DNA of innocent people can't be justified. I don't even care how many crimes it solves, if the punishments nowadays are mostly not fitting the crime anyway. What happened to good old investigations and when they have a hunch they could take DNA from suspects [which later could be destroyed if innocent]?
The majority of crimes is committed by people who already have a criminal record. Therefore having DNA of convicted people makes sense.
I don't want to be waved to the side of the road by the police and asked for my DNA for a speeding offence. There is no need. I wouldn't give it. Not because I have something to hide but for the opposite reason. I have done nothing wrong enough to warrant an intrusion of my freedom.

So what if a few crimes don't get solved? Tough, it's life. Life isn't always perfect. Nobody gave a toss when we got burgled and our car broken into only a week afterwards. If it is so important that EVERY crime has to be solved why didn't they make more of an effort?
It stinks, to me its pure and simple hypocricy:
"Give us your DNA because we need it to solve most [if not all] crime but if a crime is committed we can't be arsed to bother about it? :shock:
So what is my frigging DNA for???????

 

[Analogue Boy]

The argument in the states is that DNA is seen as a tool to eliminate suspects from an enquiry, therefore saving police time so they can look at the alternative suspects. Which is all very handy if it proves your innocence.

If used here, this argument would slightly settle my niggly concerns but the government and police 'service' in this country seem to have an attitude that we must all give our DNA regardless, even from birth, which seems to me to place us all in the category of potential suspects to some Futurecrime. I feel this may break an already flimsy bond between the public and their paid and elected representatives. Granted they are there to preserve order but a high-handed blanket cataloguing of each individual is going too far.