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

Britain: Police State?

lupinwick said:
Do they need too? How about just instilling a sense of fear in the general populace? Is this image dodgy? Who is watching? etc. etc. Couple of show trials in the next couple of years perhaps? Minor celeb hauled over the coals of public opinion?

What happens, though, is that people get charged for having photos of kids in the bath, or photos of them swimming in the sea, or any other perfectly innocent reason for having photos of naked or half-naked kids. Which then ends up just making the law look stupid.
 
Ravenstone said:
I thought the proposal actual just said 'child abuse', rather than specifically sexual abuse? That being the case, there could be problems with all kinds of things. Books about serial killers; books on the Holocaust; books with photos of Victorian children in slums. Anything, really, that shows a child in poverty, illness, malnourished, concentration camps.

What about films like The Exorcist? Can't remember how old the child in that is. Or Poltergeist? Child in scary situation....

Stills of the beginning of Superman, for gawd's sake, where the child crawls out of the wreckage.

My mind boggles.

sadly this is going to Criminalis a lot pepole for haveing some thing thats legal.
 
I don't think it will criminalise many people, but I think it may cause a few shaky prosecutions, or just questionings. Which in turn will make a mockery of the law, thereby perhaps causing more damage than good.

It probably just needs phrasing properly. 'Creating images for the purposes of sexual activity' or some such. Of course, some people do get off on the strangest things (witness the I'm In Love With My Car programme the other week) but not all of them are illegal.
 
stuneville sant me pm im on longer to discuss manga censorship be becos of what happened.
 
I cant remember wear i read this but the police can go and raid peoples homes with outbeing haveing been suspected of donig a crime.
 
megadeth16 said:
I cant remember wear i read this but the police can go and raid peoples homes with outbeing haveing been suspected of donig a crime.

Yeah, I think they just do it for fun.
 
Well, everyone needs a hobby.

The old 'suss' laws are sort of creeping back, where people can be stopped on suspicion of being out doing no-good. They got a very bad rap (and rightly so) - reminds me of the old Not The Nine O'Clock News Sketch about the policeman called before his super due to his constant arresting of one particular chap. On one occasion, for 'having an offensive wife'.

My cousin is married to a senior CID bloke. He's conspicuous for his complete lack of a sense of humour, and constant referral to people found Not Guilty as having 'got away with it'. :roll:

My years working for well-known criminous lawyers went down a storm, I can tell you. :twisted:
 
megadeth16 said:
I cant remember wear i read this but the police can go and raid peoples homes with outbeing haveing been suspected of donig a crime.
Perhaps you read it in a Sci-Fi novel ;)

Of course the Police must suspect that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed before they can enter your home. They'd be in deep poo otherwise!

I CAN remember where I read this:
Except for anti-terrorist operations, unless you are arrested (see below) there are very few grounds on which a constable can enter your home to conduct a search without a search warrant from a magistrate. Even where there is a power to enter premises -- for example to prevent a breach of the peace -- this does not confer a power to search.
As far as anti-terrorist measures are concerned, if authorised by a senior police officer, a constable may enter your home without a warrant to search for materials that may be used for terrorism [s37 TA]. This power of search is subject to the same controls as anti-terrorist stop-and-search procedures. In particular, its use must be notified to the Home Secretary, and the authorising officer has to have reasonable grounds that it is necessary to prevent terrorism.

In most other circumstances a search will be unlawful without a warrant, unless you consent to it. A magistrate has a general power to issue a search warrant against your home if he or she reasonably believes that (i) a `serious arrestable offence' has been committed; and (ii) evidence relevant to the investigation of that offence is likely to be found there; and (iii) there is no other way to gain access except with a warrant. There are also technical restrictions that may not be very relevant; for example, the magistrate must have reasonable grounds for believing that material sought is not protected by legal professional privilege.

A `serious arrestable offence' is, in essence, one that results in death or serious injury, rape, kidnapping, or serious financial loss. It follows that a magistrate may not issue a search warrant to search for evidence of minor thefts, for example.

Magistrates also have specific powers to issue search warrants in respect of, for example, offensive weapons [s142 CJA], nuclear weapons (!) [s52 ATCSA], dangerous chemicals [s66 ATCSA], hidden terrorists [s42 TA], firearms or imitation firearms [s46 FA], and controlled drugs [s23 MDA].

In all cases, the magistrate is expected to grant the warrant only if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the sought articles are likely to be found. However, it is not uncommon for the police to ask for, and get, a warrant to search for a broad range of articles, e.g., `electrical items'.

A search warrant is normally valid for one month after issue; it cannot be lawfully executed if this time period has expired.
It's on
Kevinboone.com and sums it up nicely
 
Ravenstone said:
My years working for well-known criminous lawyers went down a storm, I can tell you. :twisted:
Criminous? I can't find that in a dictionary - is it a technical term.... ? 8)
 
Bruce Schneier wades in (quite validly) on photography.

Since 9/11, there has been an increasing war on photography. Photographers have been harrassed, questioned, detained, arrested or worse, and declared to be unwelcome. We've been repeatedly told to watch out for photographers, especially suspicious ones. Clearly any terrorist is going to first photograph his target, so vigilance is required.

Except that it's nonsense. The 9/11 terrorists didn't photograph anything. Nor did the London transport bombers, the Madrid subway bombers, or the liquid bombers arrested in 2006. Timothy McVeigh didn't photograph the Oklahoma City Federal Building. The Unabomber didn't photograph anything; neither did shoe-bomber Richard Reid. Photographs aren't being found amongst the papers of Palestinian suicide bombers. The IRA wasn't known for its photography. Even those manufactured terrorist plots that the US government likes to talk about -- the Ft. Dix terrorists, the JFK airport bombers, the Miami 7, the Lackawanna 6 -- no photography.

Given that real terrorists, and even wannabe terrorists, don't seem to photograph anything, why is it such pervasive conventional wisdom that terrorists photograph their targets? Why are our fears so great that we have no choice but to be suspicious of any photographer?

Because it's a movie-plot threat.

A movie-plot threat is a specific threat, vivid in our minds like the plot of a movie. You remember them from the months after the 9/11 attacks: anthrax spread from crop dusters, a contaminated milk supply, terrorist scuba divers armed with almanacs. Our imaginations run wild with detailed and specific threats, from the news, and from actual movies and television shows. These movie plots resonate in our minds and in the minds of others we talk to. And many of us get scared.

Terrorists taking pictures is a quintessential detail in any good movie. Of course it makes sense that terrorists will take pictures of their targets. They have to do reconnaissance, don't they? We need 45 minutes of television action before the actual terrorist attack -- 90 minutes if it's a movie -- and a photography scene is just perfect. It's our movie-plot terrorists that are photographers, even if the real-world ones are not.

The problem with movie-plot security is it only works if we guess the plot correctly. If we spend a zillion dollars defending Wimbledon and terrorists blow up a different sporting event, that's money wasted. If we post guards all over the Underground and terrorists bomb a crowded shopping area, that's also a waste. If we teach everyone to be alert for photographers, and terrorists don't take photographs, we've wasted money and effort, and taught people to fear something they shouldn't.

And even if terrorists did photograph their targets, the math doesn't make sense. Billions of photographs are taken by honest people every year, 50 billion by amateurs alone in the US And the national monuments you imagine terrorists taking photographs of are the same ones tourists like to take pictures of. If you see someone taking one of those photographs, the odds are infinitesimal that he's a terrorist.

Of course, it's far easier to explain the problem than it is to fix it. Because we're a species of storytellers, we find movie-plot threats uniquely compelling. A single vivid scenario will do more to convince people that photographers might be terrorists than all the data I can muster to demonstrate that they're not.

Fear aside, there aren't many legal restrictions on what you can photograph from a public place that's already in public view. If you're harassed, it's almost certainly a law enforcement official, public or private, acting way beyond his authority. There's nothing in any post-9/11 law that restricts your right to photograph.

This is worth fighting. Search "photographer rights" on Google and download one of the several wallet documents that can help you if you get harassed; I found one for the UK, US, and Australia. Don't cede your right to photograph in public. Don't propagate the terrorist photographer story. Remind them that prohibiting photography was something we used to ridicule about the USSR. Eventually sanity will be restored, but it may take a while.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jun/05/news.terrorism
 
rynner said:
Ravenstone said:
My years working for well-known criminous lawyers went down a storm, I can tell you. :twisted:
Criminous? I can't find that in a dictionary - is it a technical term.... ? 8)

Well, they weren't 'criminal', and that is the way such practices tend to refer to themselves.

Criminal lawyers are something else entirely.
 
More on the misuse of powers by the local councils to snoop on...well, whoever they feel like basically.
I've always said that there'd be function creep in the increasing surveillance society but you see where this is heading?

There's even a Fortean connection with an investigation into a faith healer.

Link from Daily Maul...so I can't be too certain of the veracity.

Town hall snoopers used controversial anti-terror powers to delve into the phone and email records of thousands of people last year.

They wanted to check for evidence of dog smuggling and storing petrol without permission - and even to trace a suspected bogus faith healer.

In one case they were inquiring into unburied animal carcasses.

Some councils are allowing middle-ranking staff to authorise covert operations under the controversial Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which is intended for use 'in the interests of national security'.

Many of those spied upon will have no idea they have been subjected to surveillance, as those who are innocent have no right to know.

Last night Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: 'This is a stark demonstration of how the surveillance society has got out of control with the improper use of very broad powers - powers that the public would expect to be used only for serious crime and security threats.'

Using Freedom of Information laws, 152 local councils were asked if they were using the power to intercept details of who a person phoned or emailed plus when and where the call took place.

The answers revealed that town halls looked into the private data of 936 individuals and only 31 councils did not use these powers at all.


If the same pattern were repeated across the remaining 322 councils, it would make a totalof around 3,000 people having their phone and email records accessed by bureaucrats.
The Freedom of Information requests also revealed the range of offences councils have used the anti-terror law to probe.
Kent County Council carried out 23 telephone subscriber checks as part of probes into storing petrol without a licence and bringing a dog into the UK without putting it into quarantine.


Six of the 16 checks carried out by Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council were intended to identify and locate a bogus faith healer.


Lewisham Borough Council's 18 checks included six on a rogue removal firm and one on a rogue pharmacist.


Bolton Council requested subscriber details for a mobile phone number in connection with a probe into unburied animal carcasses.

'Warning: Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said surveillance was 'out of control'
Snoopers at Birmingham City Council carried out 89 checks, the most in the survey.
Councils insist they are using the powers properly to investigate or prevent a crime.
But opponents said it proves RIPA, passed in 2000 by Labour to regulate spying and surveillance by police and the security services, is far too widely drawn.
Civil rights group Liberty said: 'You can care about serious crime and terrorism without throwing away our personal privacy with a snoopers' charter.


'The law must be reformed to require sign-off by judges, not selfauthorisation by over-zealous bureaucrats.'


RIPA also allows undercover council staff to watch individuals.


Operations can be justified on the grounds of anything from national security to 'protecting public health or public safety', 'preventing a crime' and 'protecting the economic well-being of the UK'.

This can cover dog fouling and even putting out a sack of rubbish on the wrong day.

The latest findings follow a string of alarming examples of how the anti-terror power is being used.

Poole council in Dorset spied on a family because it wrongly suspected the parents of abusing rules on school catchment areas.

 
Ravenstone said:
rynner said:
Ravenstone said:
My years working for well-known criminous lawyers went down a storm, I can tell you. :twisted:
Criminous? I can't find that in a dictionary - is it a technical term.... ? 8)

Well, they weren't 'criminal', and that is the way such practices tend to refer to themselves.

Criminal lawyers are something else entirely.

Criminous? Heinous and criminal?
 
I'm surprised there hasn't been anything on this thread about this story... or perhaps there was and I've missed it. Anyway, here it is:

On May 14, Rizwaan Sabir, a student of politics and Hicham Yezza, a former student currently employed at the University of Nottingham, were arrested under the Terrorism Act. Their crime? Sabir, a graduate research student, who is writing his MA dissertation on Islamist extremism and international terrorist networks, had downloaded an edited version of the al-Qaida training manual from a publicly accessible US government website. He had sent it to Yezza to print, and the material was noticed by staff who passed it on to university authorities. The university reported it to the police, and the two men were arrested. Kept in detention for six days, they were released without charge on May 20.

The university has argued that it was well within its grounds to contact the police. After all, what was Yezza, employed in a non-academic role, doing printing a terrorist manual? Arguably, the university was only acting in the interests of the safety of its students and staff. In the current climate of fear and surveillance constructed by the government and much of the media, we are all encouraged to be on "terror alert".

Yet one might also ask, with equal validity, why the safety and interests of the individual student and member of staff concerned were not taken into consideration? Why there was no effort to contact Sabir or his tutors before contacting the police, to ascertain whether the material was relevant to the student's research, or suggested irregular behaviour?

A spokesman for the university said the edited al-Qaida training manual was not viewed as "legitimate research material". Yet one wonders what might be deemed more appropriate research material for a student researching Islamic terrorism. The School of Politics and International Relations at Nottingham offers various courses addressing terrorism and counter-terrorism, and students are encouraged to use the internet to access materials that may enhance their research. Academics within the school have expressed their concern about the potential criminalisation of research into extremist movements, and the harsh actions taken by the university and the police. Neither students nor academic staff should have to fear police arrest and detention in the course of their work. Academic freedom and the integrity of our research are severely threatened if students and staff risk arrest over possession of controversial literature, or if universities have control over what material they are permitted to use. Merely because primary research materials are of a subversive nature does not make them illegitimate. Particularly when they are widely accessible over the internet.

This incident highlights the threats to civil liberties and academic freedom that students and academics now face, particularly those from non-western or Muslim backgrounds. The two men arrested fit the racial and religious stereotypes: they were of British Pakistani and Algerian backgrounds. One wonders whether the arrests would have taken place if the individuals concerned did not fit the "terrorist" profiles that cause Muslim and non-white citizens of this country to be subject to increased police surveillance.

Several other incidents that have led students to fear infringements of their civil liberties. Earlier this academic year, Nottingham university called the police on to campus during a peaceful protest organised by the Palestinian society against the Israeli-Palestine wall, which resulted in the arrest of the same student, Rizwaan Sabir, who was released later that day without charge.

Hicham Yezza, during his time in custody, was questioned extensively about his role as editor of Ceasefire, the journal of the Nottingham Student Peace Movement. Yezza was probed, alongside members of the editorial team, about his political views and the content of the publication. Following his release without charge, he was subsequently arrested on immigration grounds. Originally granted a hearing to argue his case on July 16, he is now being denied the right to a hearing, and police are rushing to deport him to Algeria on June 1.

The haste of the immigration services in removing him from the country without a fair hearing has caused outrage among the academic community at Nottingham. Students, academics, and MPs are concerned that Yezza's rushed deportation is an attempt by the police to cover up their embarrassing blunder over the "terrorist" arrests.

Universities are intended to be a place for learning, debate and free discussion. In order to maintain their credibility, they must protect the academic freedom and freedom of expression of their students and staff, regardless of ethnic background and religious or political beliefs. Universities should not be succumbing to the climate of fear constructed by the "war on terrorism". If they wish to maintain their academic integrity, they cannot and should not respond by immediately handing over their students and staff to the police for detention or deportation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... nderthreat[/quote]
 
More from the Maul on councils overstretching their authority in the rubbish department. To me, this seems suspiciously like snooping as a fact-finding exercise before creating an additional charge for refuse collection we already pay for.

'Bin bureaucrats' secretly taking families' wheelie-bins to sift and weigh the food they throw out


Householders are having their rubbish secretly sifted and weighed to see how much food they are throwing away, it has emerged.

Wheelie-bins are being taken from residents without their knowledge, and spot checked to see how many scraps of food are in them and how much they weigh.

No permission is sought for the 'sampling' exercise and the householder is simply presented with a new bin.

Council taxpayers in Sussex have reacted furiously to the latest example of 'bin bureaucracy' and said officials had no right to snoop on the contents of their refuse.

Officials at Tory-run Mid-Sussex District Council attempted to reassure locals by telling them it is a 'fact-finding' exercise to gauge how much food is being dumped.

But residents branded the survey - which cost £1,700 - an invasion of privacy and fear it is the first step towards charging residents who fail to meet Government recycling targets.

Full thing here...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... w-out.html
 
jimv1 said:
More from the Maul on councils overstretching their authority in the rubbish department. To me, this seems suspiciously like snooping as a fact-finding exercise before creating an additional charge for refuse collection we already pay for.
Although it is diificult to know where Rubbish ends and where the Police State begins,
we do already have a Rubbish thread:
http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=27518 ;)
 
Yes....but I'd say this was a case of unnacountable bods sifting through the detritus of our private lives with a view to making a financial profit at the end of it.

This is also in addition to the council snooping on the public that has already been reported and mission creep by the 'surveillance state'.
 
I say this "David Davis" (if that is his real name) is covering his arse. Ask yourself: what's he so afraid of? Who is this new law really affecting? What is he planning? Lock him up before he has a chance to cause trouble, it's the only way to be sure.
 
theyithian said:
Interesting turn of events. Davis claimed, yesterday on the BBC Radio4 'Today' programme, that the Tories would repeal the 42 day law, as soon as they got into power. Obviously Cameron couldn't actually give him that assurance and was apparently quite angry with him, for claiming any such thing.

Well, if a Shadow Home Secretary doesn't know what's what, about matters of civil liberties and the State, then I don't know who does. More power to his elbow, I say.

Let's hope that Davis doesn't mysteriously decide to commit suicide in a wood, or take up hillwalking and die of a heart attack, any time in the near future.
 
gncxx said:
Who is this new law really affecting? What is he planning? Lock him up before he has a chance to cause trouble, it's the only way to be sure.


Nah, I'm sure if this bill had actually got Royal Assent and become a law, the first person who should be cancelling his milk would be the Govt. official who left the Classified Al Qaeda documents on the train, even though he shouldn't have even taken them home.
An ideal candidate for 42 days of stress positions and the odd unofficial waterboarding, sounds like he was trying to pass info to terrorists eh?

I wonder if anyone would notice his desk calendar hadn't been changed?
 
gncxx said:
I say this "David Davis" (if that is his real name) is covering his arse. Ask yourself: what's he so afraid of? Who is this new law really affecting? What is he planning? Lock him up before he has a chance to cause trouble, it's the only way to be sure.

I once saw him at Euston train station holding a book about Robin Hood. I suppose that's a sort of terrorist manual when you think about it.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Well, if a Shadow Home Secretary doesn't know what's what, about matters of civil liberties and the State, then I don't know who does. More power to his elbow, I say.
Hear hear!

(If nothing else, it's suprised almost everyone, and given the chattering classes something to chatter about. Which means tomorrow's papers will be full of comment...)
 
On the issue of the detention vote - were the DUP bribed/threatened?

Ian Paisley Jr could return to ministerial office after an inquiry cleared him of accepting a free house from a property developer, Northern Irelands former first minister said today.

Mr Paisley Snr said his son had been vindicated and claimed the complaint about the purchase of his Co Antrim house from Seymour Sweeney was motivated by politics.

continues

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaki ... king55.htm
 
rynner said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Well, if a Shadow Home Secretary doesn't know what's what, about matters of civil liberties and the State, then I don't know who does. More power to his elbow, I say.
Hear hear!

(If nothing else, it's suprised almost everyone, and given the chattering classes something to chatter about. Which means tomorrow's papers will be full of comment...)

Yeah, great idea, give up the job where you have the most chance of changing this law you feel so strongly about in a fit of pique so when the Tories get into power next election you're just another political hasbeen. The man's a genius. No, that's not the word... attention seeker, that's it.

Unless someone has photos of him at a gay orgy or whatever, in which case he's getting out while the going's good.
 
gncxx said:
Unless someone has photos of him at a gay orgy or whatever, in which case he's getting out while the going's good.

I don't think that's the sort of mandate he's after.

Personally, I'm quite happy to see the debate on civil liberties given more attention. I still haven't heard a good argument for the 42 day detention. According to Liberty, the benchmark case for this is Operation Overt at Heathrow in 2006 where it was claimed that 28 days was a bit of a narrow squeak, yet we find that..

The evidence relied upon to charge the two suspects, at the end of the 28 day period, was obtained by the police within four and 12 days respectively.

During the last 15 days of detention, interviewing of both suspects tailed off dramatically with average interview periods of only 10 and 16 minutes per day respectively.
 
Back
Top