Britain: Police State?

[maximus otter]

Councils are not snooping enough, says spying watchdog

Sir Paul Kennedy, the Interception of Communications Commissioner, has urged councils to "make much more use" of new spying legislation which allows them to access phone bills and call records of members of the public.

Under laws introduced in 2004, local authorities can apply to use covert tactics to spy on employees for "crimes" such as skipping work and filing fraudulent overtime claims.

They can also be used to target members of the public suspected of breaking the law by fly-tipping, cheating the benefits system or dog fouling. Direct surveillance is used in many cases.

However, Sir Paul said that not enough councils were making use of their powers to obtain communications data from other people. Just 154 local authorities out of more than 410 councils in England and Wales used the powers last year. Sir Paul said many more should use them, but did not suggest which crimes the technology would be suitable for.

He said: "Very few local authorities have used their powers to acquire itemised call records in relation to the investigations which they have conducted.

"Indeed our inspections have shown that generally the local authorities could make much more use of communications data as a powerful tool to investigate crime."

The phone records could be used to identify criminals who "persistently rip off consumers, cheat the taxpayer, deal in counterfeit goods and prey on the elderly and vulnerable".

Sir Paul admitted that many councils have "struggled" to comply with the rules governing interception – but claims this is the result of a lack of experience.

He said most local authorities "make very infrequent use of their powers" and as a result staff are often not familiar with aspects of the Code of Practice.

Councils across the country were criticised last month as it emerged that they used the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act up to 10,000 times a year to investigate such petty offences as dog fouling and under-age smoking.

The Local Government Association's chairman Sir Simon Milton defended councils.

Sir Simon said: "Generally [the powers] are being used to respond to residents' complaints about fly tippers, rogue traders and those defrauding the council tax or housing benefit system.

"Time and again, these are just the type of crimes that residents tell us that they want to see tackled.

"Without these powers, councils would not be able to provide the level of reassurance and protection local people demand and deserve."

The news came as the Tories said that if they win power at the next general election they would axe the requirement that police fill out lengthy RIPA forms to carry out basic surveillance jobs.

Figures show that in 2007/08, 23,650 RIPA authorisations were issued to the police – with each authorisation taking up to 13 hours to obtain, wasting thousands of hours.

To free up police time the Conservatives would axe the requirement for RIPA clearance for CCTV surveillance, using automatic number plate recognition software and public surveillance of a building.

RIPA authorisations would also not be required for commissioning covert recording or bugging of a house or car, or using thermal or x-ray surveillance of a building.

Shadow Home Secretary, Dominic Grieve, said: "It is not right that we charge our police with combating crime and disorder and then tie their hands behind their backs in the name of Whitehall bureaucracy.

"Conservatives believe the police should be given both the resources and the freedom to use those resources to do their job.

"Revising the RIPA framework so that authorisation – and all the paperwork that goes with it – is not required for basic police work is just one way the Conservatives will cut red tape to free more police onto our streets."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... chdog.html

maximus otter

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

To free up police time the Conservatives would axe the requirement for RIPA clearance for CCTV surveillance, using automatic number plate recognition software and public surveillance of a building.

RIPA authorisations would also not be required for commissioning covert recording or bugging of a house or car, or using thermal or x-ray surveillance of a building.

Shadow Home Secretary, Dominic Grieve, said: "It is not right that we charge our police with combating crime and disorder and then tie their hands behind their backs in the name of Whitehall bureaucracy.

"Conservatives believe the police should be given both the resources and the freedom to use those resources to do their job.

"Revising the RIPA framework so that authorisation – and all the paperwork that goes with it – is not required for basic police work is just one way the Conservatives will cut red tape to free more police onto our streets."

I hope David Davis calls a snap by-election if the Tories get elected...

 

[OneWingedBird]

Shadow Home Secretary, Dominic Grieve, said: "It is not right that we charge our police with combating crime and disorder and then tie their hands behind their backs in the name of Whitehall bureaucracy.

yes, it's great to know that while where i live there's a 45 minute going on one hour response time if i get burgled, assaulted or mugged (and i have been all 3 in the last 16 years with no-one ver being nicked for it), the police will be using their super new powers to check if i'm pulling a sicky.

i think the priorities might be a bit skewed there!

 

[Analogue Boy]

RIPA authorisations would also not be required for commissioning covert recording or bugging of a house or car, or using thermal or x-ray surveillance of a building.

I cannot possibly see how a council having the authority to do this would be misused in any way. :cry:

 

[OneWingedBird]

I cannot possibly see how a council having the authority to do this would be misused in any way. Crying or Very sad

and it's very good too if you want to bust hobby bobbys for having badly insulated houses:

Police raid home of Blunkett Bobby after infrared helicopter mistook bad insulation for cannabis factory

When the police helicopter's infra-red camera detected something unusual, officers were quick to act.

The building was 'bright' - sometimes an indication that warm lamps are being used to help cultivate a drug crop.

Scanning the monitor an officer said: 'There's a house that's doing a glow in the dark - I'm thinking it might be cannabis related.'

Two colleagues were duly dispatched to the property - only to find it was the home of police community support officer Zally Huseyin.

The glow had been caused by poor roof insulation and not, as they had suspected, the powerful lights typically used in drug factories.

Mrs Huseyin, 46, has told how she was horrified when the officers, who recognised her from work, arrived to search her £400,000 detached home in Cambourne, Cambridgeshire.

'When I saw the squad car I thought it was colleagues just popping in for a cup of tea,' the mother of five said. 'They said if I hadn't been in they'd have to have broken the door down.'

Police use helicopter heat monitoring to spot houses where cannabis is grown indoors under light that generates a bright white trace on infra-red cameras.
glowing

The officers showed her the helicopter DVD that had aroused their suspicions. But a search of the four-year-old house only found shoddy insulation.

Mrs Huseyin, who has been a PCSO, otherwise known as a Blunkett's bobby, since March 2007, said: 'I'm so embarrassed.'

A Cambridgeshire Police spokesman confirmed the heat source was traced to poor loft insulation.
cannabis factory

A real cannabis factory, discovered at a house in Dagenham, East London

Mrs Huseyin and her husband Steve, a 46-year-old garage owner, have lived in the five-bedroom house for less than 18 months. The incident has fuelled their anger about what they claim is the house's poor design.

'These houses are meant to be environmentally and economically friendly but last year's gas bill was £1,000. I feel I've been ripped off,' she added.

David Bell, managing director of builders David Wilson Homes South Midlands, said he had been contacted by Mrs Huseyin regarding concerns over energy efficiency.

After conducting additional investigations the firm 'found the home complies with all the relevant standards'.

This Is London

 

[ihatethatmonkee3]

Re: Councils are not snooping enough, says spying watchdog

Sir Paul Kennedy, the Interception of Communications Commissioner, has urged councils to "make much more use" of new spying legislation which allows them to access phone bills and call records of members of the public.

wasn't there another report in the papers a few weeks prior to this that too many councils were abusing these same powers?

 

[maximus otter]

Government wants powers to open your private email account

The news means that councils or quangoes could access private email accounts or examine internet phone records to snoop on taxpayers.

It has emerged that Sir Paul Kennedy, the spying watchdog, said they were not using their powers to examine phone bills and call records enough.

Since last October phone companies have had to retain information about all landline and mobile phone calls made by members of the public for one year, and hand over the data to more than 650 public bodies and quangos.

The move, approved by Parliament last July under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, was justified as a vital tool in the fight against terrorism.

The Home Office said it wanted to extend the powers to include people's access to websites, email accounts and even phone calls made over the internet using services like Skype.

A Home Office consultation document on implementing an EU directive on electronic communications said the data would only be made available "to assist in the investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime".

The cost of the new plan is likely to be borne by internet and telecommunications companies, although the Home Office said this would form part of the consultation.

The move has been heavily criticised, with claims that extending the powers was further evidence of a "snoopers' charter".

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said: "Ministers have proven time and time again that they are not to be trusted with sensitive data, but they seem intent on pressing ahead with this snoopers' charter.

"We will be told it is for use in combating terrorism and organised crime but if RIPA powers are anything to go by, it will soon be used to spy on ordinary people's kids, pets and bins.

"Once again, the Government seems prepared to be more invasive than its EU counterparts in seeking to hold phone records for two years rather than six months."

Guy Herbert, a spokesman for the No2ID campaign, said the information would be made available to "hundreds of official bodies responsible" under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

He said: "As ever with the database state this is a mass-surveillance measure for the retrospective convenience of officialdom in general.

"Bugging and tracking genuine suspects in real ongoing investigations is unaffected. This is keeping everything it might be convenient to know about you and me for a rainy day."

The Home Office said that enforcement officers would only have access to where emails were sent or received from and not their content.

A spokesman said: "This data is a vital tool to investigations and intelligence gathering in support of national security and crime. Communications data allows investigators to identify suspects, examine their contacts, establish relationships between conspirators and place them in a specific location at a certain time.

"It also gives investigators the potential to identify other forensic opportunities, identify witnesses and premises of evidential interest. Many alibis are proven or refuted through the use of communications data. Without the directive investigative opportunities will increasingly be lost.

"Implementing the EC Directive will enable UK law enforcement to benefit fully from historical communications data in increasingly complex investigations and will enhance our national security."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... count.html

maximus otter

 

[ArthurASCII]

and it's very good too if you want to bust hobby bobbys for having badly insulated houses:This Is London

I'm afraid that your pejorative is incorrect. The term "hobby bobby" is applied to Special Constables (who are unpaid volunteers). The correct pejorative for Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) is either Plastic Policemen, Blunkett's Bobbies or Dickheads (unless of course, you need some assistance)

 

[maximus otter]

The correct pejorative for Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) is either Plastic Policemen, Blunkett's Bobbies or Dickheads

Sorry, Arthur; you are behind the curve: My sources now indicate that the acronym CHIMPS is in use. It stands for "Completely Helpless In Most Policing Situations".

Glad to be of service.

maximus otter

 

[OneWingedBird]

(unless of course, you need some assistance) Wink

then i'll have to remember to call them around 40 minutes before i'm about to be burgled or mugged... that way they'll only arrive 5 minutes after the perp has scarpered!

 

[ArthurASCII]

(unless of course, you need some assistance) Wink

then i'll have to remember to call them around 40 minutes before i'm about to be burgled or mugged...

Good idea. Then we'll be pleased to provide you with a free home security audit to make your property more secure (and maybe provide up to £250 worth of security improvements, depending on whether there's a Care & Repair-type shceme operating in your area) and some safety advice on how to best avoid becoming a victim of street violence.

I wish more people had your proactive attitude.

Interestingly, the most cost effective burglar-deterrent is a big sign saying "Beware of the dog". The second most effective deterrent is an actual dog, and in third place, a decent burglar alarm system.

 

[OneWingedBird]

Good idea. Then we'll be pleased to provide you with a free home security audit to make your property more secure (and maybe provide up to £250 worth of security improvements, depending on whether there's a Care & Repair-type shceme operating in your area) and some safety advice on how to best avoid becoming a victim of street violence.

actually i got burgled as a bit of a fluke, i'd figured the burglar proof double glazing (both downstairs windows held against crowbarring) and the security gate (it held too but was damaged in picking attempt) would keep the basterds out... that and my security light had been switched off by accident.

buggers got in through a coal hole that's 13" square i got a steel grille put on that afterwards before i could sleep in the house again.

actually the police got some forensics, a bootprint, which apparently is good for about 2 weeks, but they didn't have the resource to check it against the local little shits (and it probably was one of them), so they were just like 'we'll see if we get a match from anyone we pick up'...

do you think it's wrong, ascii, to expect the plod to solve petty crime some of the time? or do we live in a world now where it's considered a reasonable expectation that we report things to them for little more than a few kind words and the recording of statistics

 

[ArthurASCII]

do you think it's wrong, ascii, to expect the plod to solve petty crime some of the time? or do we live in a world now where it's considered a reasonable expectation that we report things to them for little more than a few kind words and the recording of statistics

Please, call me Arthur.

It's VITAL that people report crime. I'm sure you wouldn't be surprised if I told you that I'm stopped at least two or three times a week by people who tell me that they had their garage/shed broken into a couple of weeks ago, but didn't report it as they didn't think that the Police would anything

The fact is, that when a crime is reported, us lowly PCSOs will do a series of house to house enquiries. These often lead to extra witness info and sometimes, a bit of private CCTV footage which can nail the perp.

I think we have a bad record of keeping people informed of the results of our enquiries though. Often, when a villain is caught, they "cough" to a whole string of offences in order to wipe their slate clean. The victims of these other offences are rarely informed that the perp has been caught and punished. Hence the cause of some of the apathy you allude to.

Any info received is used to plot time and location, and is most useful in targeting resources and comparing with sightings of known active criminals. If people are to lazy or cynical to bother to report a crime, they're fools to themselves and are not helping their neighbours

Personally, I don't give a bugger about stats (if people don't report crimes, that helps make the stats look good, surely?). There's no promotion tree in my job. I'm just in it to do the best I can to keep the crime rates down on my patch. Any information from my local community that assists me in the process is most welcome and much appreciated.

 

[rynner2]

More on the perils of photography in our paranoid society - a three page article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jh ... aphers.xml

I give just one extract (although it's all interesting):

When Graham Rigg heard the wailing sirens and saw the flashing blue lights of the police car in his rear-view mirror he pulled over to let it pass. But when it performed a spectacular handbrake turn beside him, hemming his vehicle in, he realised it was him they were after. His mind raced: was it something about his driving? Was his tax disc out of date? Even if it was, why were the police hunting him down so dramatically? An officer got out of the car and called out to Rigg: 'Switch off your engine and get out of the car slowly.' The traffic on the South Shields one-way system slowed to a crawl as drivers watched the spectacle. 'I felt like some sort of terrorist,' Rigg remembers. Had the war on terror really come to this ordinarily quiet North-Eastern town? And if it had, why was this 51-year-old father and Neighbourhood Watch chairman its latest target? As Rigg tentatively approached the police officer, the picture started to become slightly clearer. 'They told me to get my equipment out of the boot,' he tells me. 'They somehow knew I had a camera and they wanted to look at my pictures.'

The police were responding to a 999 call from someone who claimed to have seen Rigg taking photographs in a public park earlier that afternoon. They had tracked him from a control centre on a series of CCTV cameras before sending the squad car out to apprehend him. It was true that Rigg had spent the afternoon taking pictures - for his blog - but he had been at the seafront and nowhere near a public park. The police were uninterested in his protestations. 'I showed the officer the pictures on my camera's viewfinder in the interests of bringing the matter to an end,' he says. 'It was just some shots of the sea wall and some blurred snaps of the fairground rides. No one had been around because it was hailing that afternoon.'

Shaken, confused and embarrassed by the incident, Rigg was eventually given back his camera and allowed to go home. It wasn't until later that day that he reflected on the experience and began to feel angry. 'Even if I had been taking pictures in a public park, what gives them the right to track me across town on CCTV and fly into full emergency mode?' he says. 'It became clear that they suspected me of being a paedophile just because I was taking pictures in public. But why didn't the person who called 999 take the time to approach me first and ask what I was doing? The notion of presumed innocence seems to have disappeared. So has the notion of neighbourliness - everyone seems to be living with this irrational fear of paedophiles and terrorists.'

 

[ArthurASCII]

There's no law that I'm aware of that prohibits taking snaps or video in a public place. But sadly, due to the mass hysteria that often sweeps our increasingly paranoid society, I always make a point of warning any amateur photographer or filmmaker I meet while on duty that they might risk sparking some confrontation from members of the public.

It's a crying shame, and our photographic and video heritage will be much diminished by these irrational fears.

 

[maximus otter]

How Big Brother watches your every move

With every telephone call, swipe of a card and click of a mouse, information is being recorded, compiled and stored about Britain's citizens.

An investigation by The Sunday Telegraph has now uncovered just how much personal data is being collected about individuals by the Government, law enforcement agencies and private companies each day.

In one week, the average person living in Britain has 3,254 pieces of personal information stored about him or her, most of which is kept in databases for years and in some cases indefinitely.

The data include details about shopping habits, mobile phone use, emails, locations during the day, journeys and internet searches.

In many cases this information is kept by companies such as banks and shops, but in certain circumstances they can be asked to hand it over to a range of legal authorities.

Britain's information watchdog, the Information Commissioner's Office, has called for tighter regulation of the amount of data held about citizens and urged the public to restrict the information they allow organisations to hold on them.

This newspaper's findings come days after the Government published plans to grant local authorities and other public bodies access to the email and internet records of millions. Phone companies already retain data about their customers and give it to 650 public bodies on request.

The loss of data by Government departments, including an incident where HM Revenue and Customs mislaid computer disks containing the personal details of 25 million people, has heightened concerns about the amount of information being stored.

David Smith, deputy information commissioner, said: "As more and more information is collected and kept on all of us, we are very concerned that appropriate safeguards go along with that.

"People should know what is happening with their information and have a choice.

"Our concern is that what is kept with the justification of preventing and detecting terrorism, can then be used for minor purposes such as pursuing people for parking fines."

Earlier this year the Commons home affairs select committee recommended new controls and regulations on the accumulation of information by the state.

Mobile phones

Every day the average person makes three mobile phone calls and sends at least two text messages.

Each time the network provider logs information about who was called as well as the caller's location and direction of travel, worked out by triangulation from phone masts.

Customers can also have their locations tracked even when they are not using their phones, as the devices send out unique identifying signals at regular intervals.

All of this information can be accessed by police and other public authorities investigating crimes.

The internet

Internet service providers (ISPs) compile information about their customers when they go online, including name, address, the unique identification number for the connection, known as an IP address, any browser used and location.

They also keep details of emails, such as whom they were sent to, together with the date and time they were sent. An average of 50 websites are visited and 32 emails sent per person in Britain every day.

Privacy campaigners have expressed concern that the country's three biggest ISPs – BT, Virgin Media and TalkTalk – now provide this data to a digital advertising company called Phorm so that it can analyse web surfing habits.

ISPs are already voluntarily providing information they hold about their customers if requested by law enforcement agencies and public authorities. A consultation published last week by the Government would make it a legal requirement for ISPs to provide a customer's personal information when requested. A total of 520,000 requests were made by public officials for telephone and internet details last year, an increase from around 350,000 the previous year.

Internet search engines also compile data about their users, including the IP address and what was searched for. Google receives around 68 searches from the average person each day and stores this data for 18 months.

Dr Ian Brown, a research fellow on privacy at Oxford University, said: "Companies such as Google and internet service providers are building up huge databases of data about internet users.

"These companies may be compelled, through a legal action, to hand over this information to third parties or the Government, or the companies may lose the data and it can then be misused."

Loyalty cards

Store "loyalty" cards also retain large amounts of information about individuals who have signed up to use them. They link a person's personal details to the outlets used, the transaction times and how much is spent.

In the case of Nectar cards, which are used by more than 10 million people in Britain once a week, information from dozens of shops is compiled, giving a detailed picture of a cardholder's shopping habits.

A spokesman for Loyalty Management UK, which runs the Nectar programme, insisted that information about the items bought was not compiled, but some partners in the scheme, such as Sainsbury's, use their till records to compile that information.

She admitted that the personal information that is compiled under the Nectar scheme is kept indefinitely until individuals close their account and ask for their information to be destroyed. In criminal inquiries, police can request the details held by Nectar.

Banks

Banks can also be required to hand over personal account information to the authorities if requested as part of an investigation.

They also provide personal data to credit reference agencies, debt collectors and fraud prevention organisations.

Debit and credit card transactions can give information about where and on what people are spending their money.

CCTV

The biggest source of surveillance in Britain is through the network of CCTV (closed-circuit television) cameras. On average, an individual will appear on 300 CCTV cameras during a day and those tapes are kept by many organisations for indefinite lengths of time.

On the London Underground network, Transport for London (TfL) keeps footage for a minimum of 14 days. TfL operates more than 8,500 CCTV cameras in its underground stations, 1,550 cameras on tube trains and up to 60,000 cameras on buses.

Network Rail refused to say how many CCTV cameras it operates or for how long the footage is kept.

Britain now has more CCTV cameras in public spaces than any other country in the world. A study in 2002 estimated that there were around 4.2 million cameras, but that number is likely to now be far higher.

Number plate recognition

The latest development in CCTV is the increased use of automatic number plate recognition systems, which read number-plates and search databases for signs that a vehicle has been used in crime.

A national automatic number plate recognition system is maintained by the Association of Chief Police Officers along motorways and main roads. Every number plate picked up by the system is stored in a database with date, time and location for two years.

Public transport

Travel passes such as the Oyster Card used in London and the Key card, in Oxford, can also reveal remarkable amounts of information about an individual. When they are registered to a person's name, they record journey history, dates, times and fares.

A spokesman for TfL, which runs the Oyster Card system, insisted that access to this information was restricted to its customer services agents.

Police, however, can also obtain this information and have used Oyster Card journey records as evidence in criminal cases.

The workplace

Employers are increasingly using radio-tagged security passes for employees, providing them with information about when staff enter and leave the office.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2571041/How-Big-Brother-watches-your-every-move.html

maximus otter

 

[Analogue Boy]

There's no law that I'm aware of that prohibits taking snaps or video in a public place. But sadly, due to the mass hysteria that often sweeps our increasingly paranoid society, I always make a point of warning any amateur photographer or filmmaker I meet while on duty that they might risk sparking some confrontation from members of the public.

It's a crying shame, and our photographic and video heritage will be much diminished by these irrational fears.

If there is no law against photgraphy in a public place perhaps it is beyond your remit and maybe you are reinforcing this perception among those members of the general public who happen to be using cameras by voicing this opinion.

 

[ArthurASCII]

There's no law that I'm aware of that prohibits taking snaps or video in a public place. But sadly, due to the mass hysteria that often sweeps our increasingly paranoid society, I always make a point of warning any amateur photographer or filmmaker I meet while on duty that they might risk sparking some confrontation from members of the public.

It's a crying shame, and our photographic and video heritage will be much diminished by these irrational fears.

If there is no law against photography in a public place perhaps it is beyond your remit and maybe you are reinforcing this perception among those members of the general public who happen to be using cameras by voicing this opinion.

My remit is to protect the public.
Obviously I use my discretion, and any advice, when given, is of a friendly and "take it or leave it" nature and I have invariably been thanked for my advice - I'll even accompany them if they wish (My ugly mug has made it into a few videos and photo albums ).
I have attended incidents where innocent folk taking a few holiday snaps have been intimidated by aggressive idiots - it can be very distressing for them.

 

[Analogue Boy]

I don't doubt that but surely the job involves minimal intervention until something looks like going wrong rather than promoting the Big brother line of 'some people take a dim view of this sort of thing y'know' or however you may phrase it.

My point is it's about the perception of what is acceptable under our freedoms and rights. You shouldn't be making any comment about this at all. The norm should be we can take pictures in public if we like.

 

[lupinwick]

The way the met go on you'd think any activity was suspicious.

Anti Terrorism Campaign

Old ground I know but is it any wonder folks are confused over the law?

 

[ArthurASCII]

I don't doubt that but surely the job involves minimal intervention until something looks like going wrong rather than promoting the Big brother line of 'some people take a dim view of this sort of thing y'know' or however you may phrase it.

My point is it's about the perception of what is acceptable under our freedoms and rights. You shouldn't be making any comment about this at all. The norm should be we can take pictures in public if we like.

You obviously have some sort of global perception of Police Officers and their language and attitude that you have "shoe-horned" me into. I'm not power mad and I certainly don't use the condescending "Dixon of Dock Green" dialog that you mention (perish the thought!). On the rare occasions that I offer advice, it's because I perceive a possibility of confrontation. I'd be failing in my duty otherwise and you'd be revelling in the headline "PCSO Allows Innocent Photographer to be Assaulted".

I know it's tempting to stereotype people according to your world view of certain groups and professions - but why not phone your local Police and ask to spend a shift accompanying an Officer on the beat? You might be surprised how reality stacks up against perception.

 

[lupinwick]

Personally I've never had any problems with the local police. I think a number of statements by leading police officers have tended to muddy the waters and cause confusion.

The Met's anti-terror campaign, for example, could be construed as a call for neighbours to spy on each other. Go figure. The messages coming from above are mixed.

 

[Analogue Boy]

I know it's tempting to stereotype people according to your world view of certain groups and professions - but why not phone your local Police and ask to spend a shift accompanying an Officer on the beat? You might be surprised how reality stacks up against perception.

I don't need to. The home Office have already coughed up hundreds of thousands of pounds creating the impression of independent unbiased documentary series for the commercial channels.

I do understand it is a hard job and my sympathies in many cases are with the police who have quotas to fill just like anyone else. However, there are a few cautionary tales of people using cameras in normal situations, let alone on demos and the like.

 

[ArthurASCII]

Personally I've never had any problems with the local police. I think a number of statements by leading police officers have tended to muddy the waters and cause confusion.

The Met's anti-terror campaign, for example, could be construed as a call for neighbours to spy on each other. Go figure. The messages coming from above are mixed.

I heartily agree.
The reality on the street is very different.
It's a fact that radicalisation is most often first spotted by the local Imam or family members, who will raise concerns within the community. Senior Officers often don't realise what good relations we Beat Bobbies have with our local communities. Their broad brush comments can be embarrassing and difficult to apologise for or justify over a cup of tea at the local Mosque or while chatting to a local Believer.

 

[Anonymous]

Beat Bobbies my ass ive not seen a coper down my street for some time and plus i dont trust the police any more.

 

[theredmeanie]

Beat Bobbies my ass ive not seen a coper down my street for some time and plus i dont trust the police any more.

I've never seen a copper down my street, but I have seen them, and I know they exist.

 

[escargot]

Pfft. Where I live, not only do we see the police, they're always in twos. :lol:

 

[Yithian]

Beat Bobbies my ass ive not seen a coper down my street for some time...

Punctuation aside, he has a point.

I'm staying at my parents' place now; it's a few miles out of town. The old police house around the corner was sold some time ago and we were discussing the fact that we've not seen a copper walking a beat for years.

Even in town (pop. 75,000), the only time you ever see the police is when they're arriving in cars to deal with a specific issue and when it's Fight 'O Clock on Friday and Saturday night. I think that a police presence - not a overbearing one but people taking an interest and keeping up with the news - would be overwhelmingly positive.

Perhaps such things exist in cities, but we've seen nothing like it here for years and this is the county town.

 

[OneWingedBird]

Pfft. Where I live, not only do we see the police, they're always in twos. Laughing

cira late 80s, i was living just off chapeltown road in leeds. the only times you saw the plod there was when they came out to nick someone, and then there was half a dozen of them... seriously.

 

[lupinwick]

OK, so the following could be feature creep, or a necessity to protect the young.

A vast computer database with details of every child in England is to be used by the police in the fight against crime.

The £224million Contact-Point system was originally intended to ensure none of the 11million under-18s slipped through the child protection net.

But the latest government guidance reveals that it can be accessed 'for the prevention or detection of crime' and 'the prosecution of offenders'.

ContactPoint will include children's names, ages and addresses plus details of their parents, schools, medical records and social workers.

Ministers say it will connect the different services dealing with children, allowing police, council staff, head teachers, doctors and care workers to see more easily if one is at risk.

But the system will flag up if a youngster has contact with a youth offending team or drug abuse workers - effectively indicating which children have criminal records.

Officials admit the records can be checked by police for evidence of criminality, even though a report by a Commons committee last year said: 'The purpose of ContactPoint is not to support the fight against crime.'

Critics said this was a ' shocking' extension of its original purpose and raised fresh fears about Big Brother Britain.

Liberal Democrat spokesman Baroness Miller said: 'This is truly shocking. It's exactly the definition of a police state.

'The police will have the details of a whole generation for so-called crime prevention.

'It raises a lot of issues and we haven't had a debate in Parliament about it.'

Professor Ross Anderson, a Cambridge University security expert, told the Daily Telegraph: 'This is yet another revelation about the database state that is shocking but not surprising.

'The police have always been able to look into whatever they want, but the information age changes the scale completely.'

Critics are also concerned that the Government's poor record on data security means children could be put at risk from paedophiles.

In February this year, an official review warned that the system would never be secure.

Ministers decided to create ContactPoint, to be launched later this year, in the wake of the horrific murder of eight-year-old Victoria Climbie in 2000.

She died in agony after being starved, beaten with bicycle chains, and tied up naked in a freezing North London bathroom by her aunt and her aunt's lover.

A high-profile inquiry found that there had been 12 opportunities to save Victoria but they were missed because different authorities failed to tell each other of concerns about her.

A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families insisted last night: 'This is scaremongering - pure and simple. To access ContactPoint for the purposes of prevention or detection of crime or for the prosecution of offenders, police would have to make a special request directly to the Secretary of State or local authority and make a case for disclosure.'

Source

I rather suspect that if the government hadn't lost so much data recently (or indeed over the past few years) then folks might be less concerned. As it is, people are unwilling to place any trust whatsever in the government bodies.

The original purpose of Contact Point is entirely laudable.