- Joined
- Mar 9, 2005
- Messages
- 2,628
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/oc ... publishing
I can see why you didnt want to post the link now !!!!
was'nt really supporting your view much was it ?
Britain: Police State?
- Thread starter JurekB
- Start date
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/oc ... publishing
I can see why you didnt want to post the link now !!!!
was'nt really supporting your view much was it ?
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 4,580
techybloke666 said:
Frankly that's a stupid claim - that I didn't want to post the link. I'm more than happy to. I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to psycho-analyse me, particularly when you give me 18 offline minutes in which to post a link. Tut tut.
And yes it does back up my claim unless you're arguing that at least 150 countries out of the 173 are police states. It might also be worth pointing out that we've risen in the table. You might also like to ponder the major nations that we are ahead of - major nations such as France and Japan and countries whose press you've expressed trust in in the past such as Iran and Russia.
And why - save for a nationalistic, xenophobic view of foreigners - do you insist Britain should be leading the way in press freedom?
techybloke666 said:
It certainly doesn't lend any credibility to the argument that we live in a police state. As can be seen from one of the comments, our ranking more than likely reflects press restrictions based on Human Rights laws and, given that press ownership is a factor, I wouldn't be surpised if the fact that Murdoch owns a number of titles hadn't had a bearing on our position.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2005
- Messages
- 2,628
Funny I got the impression from the guardian that they thought we should be better than 23rd !!!!
you obviously didn't get that gist from reading it.
and came back with completley the opposite of what the article is trying to say.
Mind you Ted nothing new there is there !!
we should be in the top 10 at least, all press in all county's can be savage, its about the truth that matters.
anyway
what about this child database thingy anyone have any news on that to tell !!!!
you obviously didn't get that gist from reading it.
and came back with completley the opposite of what the article is trying to say.
Mind you Ted nothing new there is there !!
we should be in the top 10 at least, all press in all county's can be savage, its about the truth that matters.
anyway
what about this child database thingy anyone have any news on that to tell !!!!
maximus otter
Recovering policeman
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2001
- Messages
- 13,944
Gordon Brown's terror claims for ID cards are 'bunkum' says GCHQ expert.
Gordon Brown's claims that a national ID card scheme would help prevent terrorist attacks are "absolute bunkum" according to a senior Government security adviser.
Harvey Mattinson, a consultant at the information technology arm of GCHQ, said that the only real value of identity cards would be to help state bodies share information about people.
Mr Mattinson is a former senior official at the Cabinet Office who now advises GCHQ's Communications-Electronics Security Group.
Speaking at an IT security conference in Wales, he rubbished ministers' claims that the multi-billion pound scheme would enhance national security.
The Prime Minister and Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, have repeatedly said ID cards will help protect Britain against terror attacks.
In a major speech about the scheme in June, Mr Brown said the cards were needed "to help inside our borders in the fight against crime, illegal working, benefit fraud and terrorism." while in March, Miss Smith declared: "The benefits are clear: to counter illegal immigration and illegal employment, to tackle crime and terrorism."
In fact, Mr Mattinson said, the cards would only be useful for "everyday issues" when Government departments needed to transfer information about people and dismissed claims that they would help the fight against terrorism as "absolute bunkum".
"The ID card has certain business functions that will help solve everyday issues, it is a means of strong identity authentication," he said.
"You cannot share information without identity authentication. We have got to get this right because it is stopping us doing our business. We need biometric as well as biographical data; we will have to build up the information on the chip."
Mr Mattinson is not the first figure from Britain's intelligence community to reject Government claims for ID cards. Dame Stella Rimington, the former head of MI5 has also questioned their value in fighting terrorism.
Despite recent speculation that he will drop the scheme, Mr Brown has insisted he will press ahead with ID cards.
The first cards will be issued to foreign nationals from next month. Next year, they will be issued to people in "secure" occupations like airport workers.
A full national card scheme is not expected before 2012. Ministers insist they will not be made compulsory for UK citizens without an act of parliament.
Both the Tories and the Lib Dems have called for ID cards to be scrapped, and opposition parties seized on Mr Mattinson's words.
Dominic Grieve, the Tory Shadow Home Secretary, said: "This is yet more damning evidence that ID cards are incapable of doing what Ministers claim. One by one government claims for ID cards have been refuted by security experts.
Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman said: "The money for this costly and useless ID card scheme should go on more police on our streets, a measure that would help to cut crime and fight terrorism."
A Home Office spokesman said: "No one has ever claimed ID cards are the complete answer to terrorism or crime but they will help tackle illegal working, money laundering and benefit fraud and terrorist activity.
"Criminals and terrorists are known to use multiple identities to avoid detection."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/3280098/Gordon-Browns-terror-claims-for-ID-cards-are-bunkum-says-GCHQ-expert.html
My emphasis throughout.
Odd that he feels that they are worthless, yet would be successful with even more intrusion into our privacy.
maximus otter
Gordon Brown's claims that a national ID card scheme would help prevent terrorist attacks are "absolute bunkum" according to a senior Government security adviser.
Harvey Mattinson, a consultant at the information technology arm of GCHQ, said that the only real value of identity cards would be to help state bodies share information about people.
Mr Mattinson is a former senior official at the Cabinet Office who now advises GCHQ's Communications-Electronics Security Group.
Speaking at an IT security conference in Wales, he rubbished ministers' claims that the multi-billion pound scheme would enhance national security.
The Prime Minister and Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, have repeatedly said ID cards will help protect Britain against terror attacks.
In a major speech about the scheme in June, Mr Brown said the cards were needed "to help inside our borders in the fight against crime, illegal working, benefit fraud and terrorism." while in March, Miss Smith declared: "The benefits are clear: to counter illegal immigration and illegal employment, to tackle crime and terrorism."
In fact, Mr Mattinson said, the cards would only be useful for "everyday issues" when Government departments needed to transfer information about people and dismissed claims that they would help the fight against terrorism as "absolute bunkum".
"The ID card has certain business functions that will help solve everyday issues, it is a means of strong identity authentication," he said.
"You cannot share information without identity authentication. We have got to get this right because it is stopping us doing our business. We need biometric as well as biographical data; we will have to build up the information on the chip."
Mr Mattinson is not the first figure from Britain's intelligence community to reject Government claims for ID cards. Dame Stella Rimington, the former head of MI5 has also questioned their value in fighting terrorism.
Despite recent speculation that he will drop the scheme, Mr Brown has insisted he will press ahead with ID cards.
The first cards will be issued to foreign nationals from next month. Next year, they will be issued to people in "secure" occupations like airport workers.
A full national card scheme is not expected before 2012. Ministers insist they will not be made compulsory for UK citizens without an act of parliament.
Both the Tories and the Lib Dems have called for ID cards to be scrapped, and opposition parties seized on Mr Mattinson's words.
Dominic Grieve, the Tory Shadow Home Secretary, said: "This is yet more damning evidence that ID cards are incapable of doing what Ministers claim. One by one government claims for ID cards have been refuted by security experts.
Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman said: "The money for this costly and useless ID card scheme should go on more police on our streets, a measure that would help to cut crime and fight terrorism."
A Home Office spokesman said: "No one has ever claimed ID cards are the complete answer to terrorism or crime but they will help tackle illegal working, money laundering and benefit fraud and terrorist activity.
"Criminals and terrorists are known to use multiple identities to avoid detection."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/3280098/Gordon-Browns-terror-claims-for-ID-cards-are-bunkum-says-GCHQ-expert.html
My emphasis throughout.
Odd that he feels that they are worthless, yet would be successful with even more intrusion into our privacy.
maximus otter
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
Schoolboy, 15, held as terror suspect after taking photos of railway station for GCSE project
Last updated at 11:24 AM on 31st October 2008
A schoolboy was held as a terrorist suspect by police support officers - for taking photographs of a railway station on a geography field trip.
Fabian Sabbara, 15, was dressed in his school uniform when he was stopped by three police community support officers for taking photos of a station on his mobile phone.
He explained he was taking pictures, as well as pedestrian counts and a traffic survey, as part of a GCSE project.
But PCSO Barry Reeve told Fabian, from Cheam in South London, to sign forms under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act, which allows police to stop and search at random anyone they suspect of terrorism.
The pupil from Rutlish High School, Merton, was forced to comply or face arrest after he was stopped at nearby Wimbledon railway station.
After the incident, his mother Clare and father Felix contacted police to remove any record of the incident against their son's name - but were told it had to remain in place for six years.
Scotland Yard have since wiped the record from their database, but Mr Sabbara, 48, an audio-visual installer, said the incident could have affected Fabian's future employment chances.
He said the matter had also sparked fear at Fabian's school, where trips had been banned over concerns that pupils could be stopped by police for taking pictures.
Mr Sabbara said: 'Fabian was just a 15-year-old boy trying to do his school work. He had done nothing wrong.
'The point is, if this incident had remained on file it could affect him in years to come when he applies for jobs such as the RAF.
'Also if there was a terrorist attack at Wimbledon station he would be a suspect. It's just ludicrous.
'There needs to be more common sense when applying this law.'
During the incident Fabian, among 55 pupils who had split into groups, had to sign a form titled 'Stop-and-Search Terrorism Act'.
Metropolitan Police spokesman Beverley Kassem said officers did not search him and no further action was taken.
She said: 'Police have met with the boy, his family and representatives from the school to discuss the incident and reassure them of any concerns they may have.
'As a result of this meeting, schools and police will work closely on future school trips in the area.
'The record of the stop on the stop-and-search database has been removed.'
Merton Council cabinet member for children's services Councillor Debbie Shears said: 'We understand this incident has been resolved directly between the police, the school and the pupil's family.
'School trips are an integral part of a student's life and we are working with both schools and police to see what sort of guidelines need to be developed and put in to place.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... oject.html
Last updated at 11:24 AM on 31st October 2008
A schoolboy was held as a terrorist suspect by police support officers - for taking photographs of a railway station on a geography field trip.
Fabian Sabbara, 15, was dressed in his school uniform when he was stopped by three police community support officers for taking photos of a station on his mobile phone.
He explained he was taking pictures, as well as pedestrian counts and a traffic survey, as part of a GCSE project.
But PCSO Barry Reeve told Fabian, from Cheam in South London, to sign forms under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act, which allows police to stop and search at random anyone they suspect of terrorism.
The pupil from Rutlish High School, Merton, was forced to comply or face arrest after he was stopped at nearby Wimbledon railway station.
After the incident, his mother Clare and father Felix contacted police to remove any record of the incident against their son's name - but were told it had to remain in place for six years.
Scotland Yard have since wiped the record from their database, but Mr Sabbara, 48, an audio-visual installer, said the incident could have affected Fabian's future employment chances.
He said the matter had also sparked fear at Fabian's school, where trips had been banned over concerns that pupils could be stopped by police for taking pictures.
Mr Sabbara said: 'Fabian was just a 15-year-old boy trying to do his school work. He had done nothing wrong.
'The point is, if this incident had remained on file it could affect him in years to come when he applies for jobs such as the RAF.
'Also if there was a terrorist attack at Wimbledon station he would be a suspect. It's just ludicrous.
'There needs to be more common sense when applying this law.'
During the incident Fabian, among 55 pupils who had split into groups, had to sign a form titled 'Stop-and-Search Terrorism Act'.
Metropolitan Police spokesman Beverley Kassem said officers did not search him and no further action was taken.
She said: 'Police have met with the boy, his family and representatives from the school to discuss the incident and reassure them of any concerns they may have.
'As a result of this meeting, schools and police will work closely on future school trips in the area.
'The record of the stop on the stop-and-search database has been removed.'
Merton Council cabinet member for children's services Councillor Debbie Shears said: 'We understand this incident has been resolved directly between the police, the school and the pupil's family.
'School trips are an integral part of a student's life and we are working with both schools and police to see what sort of guidelines need to be developed and put in to place.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... oject.html
OneWingedBird
Beloved of Ra
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2003
- Messages
- 15,431
This is pretty grim. I can remember a friend who'd never taken drugs in his life being pulled up by the police because their sniffer dog decided he was dodgy... perhaps he'd just been stood too close to someone who was having a joint at a gig, or maybe the dog was just plain having a brainfart that time.
No idea how reliable swabbing hands is, but considering that in some parts of the country a lot of banknotes are contaminated, i'm not holding out much hope
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/nor ... 702856.stm
No idea how reliable swabbing hands is, but considering that in some parts of the country a lot of banknotes are contaminated, i'm not holding out much hope
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/nor ... 702856.stm
Analogue Boy
Bar 6
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 13,527
BlackRiverFalls said:
Here we go again. Another 'fear' alleviated but surely the irony is that alcohol itself is a drug. In fact it's the most commonly used and widely abused psychoactive drug in the world.
So really, they should be testing people for drug use on the way out of bars and pubs. They'll catch more offenders that way and my 'fear' of assault by a couple of drunken louts will be put to rest.
escargot
Disciple of Marduk
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2001
- Messages
- 43,323
- Location
- HM The Tower of London
Article on sniffer dogs by Amber Marks
and another
She reckons they're unreliable and yet credited with almost supernatural powers.
Beware - you can be convicted on the bark of a police dog.
:shock:
She has a point. As BRF points out, it's possible to handle banknotes contaminated with drugs without ever having used drugs yourself.
(Also, one end of that fiver might've been up some dirty sod's nose, too. Urk.)
The Birmingham Six were innocent, and they were convicted through the 'evidence' of a residue left on their hands by playing cards.
and another
She reckons they're unreliable and yet credited with almost supernatural powers.
Beware - you can be convicted on the bark of a police dog.
:shock:
She has a point. As BRF points out, it's possible to handle banknotes contaminated with drugs without ever having used drugs yourself.
(Also, one end of that fiver might've been up some dirty sod's nose, too. Urk.)
The Birmingham Six were innocent, and they were convicted through the 'evidence' of a residue left on their hands by playing cards.
Hmmmmm, some of these look like and sound like minor acts of government mandated terrorism. Lets scare the shit out of law-abiding kids etc. Lets demonise photography in public places etc. FFS - are they going to ban google maps next? Censor A-Zs? Remove all archive photos from the net?
Back to ID cards though. Any clues as to how a biometric ID card is going to function with things such as the witness protection program (or even security services needing to maintain multiple identities - assuming of course that they do)? If the ID card scheme has been designed with such schemes in mind then it is already flawed and unfit for purpose - the back door will already exist and be exploitable.
Back to ID cards though. Any clues as to how a biometric ID card is going to function with things such as the witness protection program (or even security services needing to maintain multiple identities - assuming of course that they do)? If the ID card scheme has been designed with such schemes in mind then it is already flawed and unfit for purpose - the back door will already exist and be exploitable.
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2003
- Messages
- 1,991
BlackRiverFalls said:
Er, isn't that what sniffer dogs are for? In any case, with both dogs and swabs, it's just a matter of suspects -- it might mean you get searched, you're not sent to jail for it.
And why has there been so little discussion of the 42 days issue here? Doesn't the conspicuous defeat of the government's pet project suggest that we're a very long way from beign a police state?
True, not much but we still have 28 days and the government are apparently preparing a reprise of the act. Granted its better than 42 (or 90) but remember it was the unelected House of Lords who trashed the bill, not the democratically elected Hose of Commons.
To be honest, 14, 28, 42 or 90 days is largely meaningless. There does seem to be an increase in benign monitoring of folks and a corresponding erosion (albeit minor) of freedoms.
More to the point, our beloved government are holding the 42 day bill in reserve (for a rainy day perhaps?).
Source
Personally, I suspect there is a fair amount of fear-mongering going on.
To be honest, 14, 28, 42 or 90 days is largely meaningless. There does seem to be an increase in benign monitoring of folks and a corresponding erosion (albeit minor) of freedoms.
More to the point, our beloved government are holding the 42 day bill in reserve (for a rainy day perhaps?).
Source
Personally, I suspect there is a fair amount of fear-mongering going on.
Analogue Boy
Bar 6
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 13,527
lupinwick said:
That's because there's loads of innovational technological solutions looking for a problem.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
Government black boxes will 'collect every email'
Home Office says all data from web could be stored in giant government database
By Robert Verkaik, Law Editor
Wednesday, 5 November 2008
Internet "black boxes" will be used to collect every email and web visit in the UK under the Government's plans for a giant "big brother" database, The Independent has learnt.
Home Office officials have told senior figures from the internet and telecommunications industries that the "black box" technology could automatically retain and store raw data from the web before transferring it to a giant central database controlled by the Government.
Plans to create a database holding information about every phone call, email and internet visit made in the UK have provoked a huge public outcry. Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, described it as "step too far" and the Government's own terrorism watchdog said that as a "raw idea" it was "awful".
Nevertheless, ministers have said they are committed to consulting on the new Communications Data Bill early in the new year. News that the Government is already preparing the ground by trying to allay the concerns of the internet industry is bound to raise suspicions about ministers' true intentions. Further details of the database emerged on Monday at a meeting of internet service providers (ISPs) in London where representatives from BT, AOL Europe, O2 and BSkyB were given a PowerPoint presentation of the issues and the technology surrounding the Government's Interception Modernisation Programme (IMP), the name given by the Home Office to the database proposal.
Whitehall experts working on the IMP unit told the meeting the security and intelligence agencies wanted to use the stored data to help fight serious crime and terrorism, and said the technology would allow them to create greater "capacity" to monitor all communication traffic on the internet. The "black boxes" are an attractive option for the internet industry because they would be secure and not require any direct input from the ISPs.
During the meeting Whitehall officials also tried to reassure the industry by suggesting that many smaller ISPs would be unaffected by the "black boxes" as these would be installed upstream on the network and hinted that all costs would be met by the Government.
"It was clear the 'back box' is the technology the Government will use to hold all the data. But what isn't clear is what the Home Secretary, GCHQ and the security services intend to do with all this information in the future," said a source close to the meeting.
He added: "They said they only wanted to return to a position they were in before the emergence of internet communication, when they were able to monitor all correspondence with a police suspect. The difference here is they will be in a much better position to spy on many more people on the basis of their internet behaviour. Also there's a grey area between what is content and what is traffic. Is what is said in a chat room content or just traffic?"
Ministers say plans for the database have not been confirmed, and that it is not their intention to introduce monitoring or storage equipment that will check or hold the content of emails or phonecalls on the traffic.
A spokesman for the Home Office said that Monday's meeting provided a "chance to engage with small communication service providers" ahead of the formal public consultation next year. He added: "We need to work closely with the internet service providers and the communication service providers. The meeting was to show the top-line challenges faced in the future. We are public about the IMP, but we are still working out the detail. There will a consultation on the Communications Data Bill early next year."
A spokesman for the Internet Service Providers Association said the organisation was pleased the Home Office had addressed its members and was keen to continue dialogue while awaiting a formal consultation.
Database plans were first announced by the Prime Minister in February. It is not clear where the records will be held but GCHQ may eventually be the project's home.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 92268.html
About 90% of my email is FTMB notifications - that should help clog up the gubmint's black box! And think too of all the spam they'll get!
Home Office says all data from web could be stored in giant government database
By Robert Verkaik, Law Editor
Wednesday, 5 November 2008
Internet "black boxes" will be used to collect every email and web visit in the UK under the Government's plans for a giant "big brother" database, The Independent has learnt.
Home Office officials have told senior figures from the internet and telecommunications industries that the "black box" technology could automatically retain and store raw data from the web before transferring it to a giant central database controlled by the Government.
Plans to create a database holding information about every phone call, email and internet visit made in the UK have provoked a huge public outcry. Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, described it as "step too far" and the Government's own terrorism watchdog said that as a "raw idea" it was "awful".
Nevertheless, ministers have said they are committed to consulting on the new Communications Data Bill early in the new year. News that the Government is already preparing the ground by trying to allay the concerns of the internet industry is bound to raise suspicions about ministers' true intentions. Further details of the database emerged on Monday at a meeting of internet service providers (ISPs) in London where representatives from BT, AOL Europe, O2 and BSkyB were given a PowerPoint presentation of the issues and the technology surrounding the Government's Interception Modernisation Programme (IMP), the name given by the Home Office to the database proposal.
Whitehall experts working on the IMP unit told the meeting the security and intelligence agencies wanted to use the stored data to help fight serious crime and terrorism, and said the technology would allow them to create greater "capacity" to monitor all communication traffic on the internet. The "black boxes" are an attractive option for the internet industry because they would be secure and not require any direct input from the ISPs.
During the meeting Whitehall officials also tried to reassure the industry by suggesting that many smaller ISPs would be unaffected by the "black boxes" as these would be installed upstream on the network and hinted that all costs would be met by the Government.
"It was clear the 'back box' is the technology the Government will use to hold all the data. But what isn't clear is what the Home Secretary, GCHQ and the security services intend to do with all this information in the future," said a source close to the meeting.
He added: "They said they only wanted to return to a position they were in before the emergence of internet communication, when they were able to monitor all correspondence with a police suspect. The difference here is they will be in a much better position to spy on many more people on the basis of their internet behaviour. Also there's a grey area between what is content and what is traffic. Is what is said in a chat room content or just traffic?"
Ministers say plans for the database have not been confirmed, and that it is not their intention to introduce monitoring or storage equipment that will check or hold the content of emails or phonecalls on the traffic.
A spokesman for the Home Office said that Monday's meeting provided a "chance to engage with small communication service providers" ahead of the formal public consultation next year. He added: "We need to work closely with the internet service providers and the communication service providers. The meeting was to show the top-line challenges faced in the future. We are public about the IMP, but we are still working out the detail. There will a consultation on the Communications Data Bill early next year."
A spokesman for the Internet Service Providers Association said the organisation was pleased the Home Office had addressed its members and was keen to continue dialogue while awaiting a formal consultation.
Database plans were first announced by the Prime Minister in February. It is not clear where the records will be held but GCHQ may eventually be the project's home.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 92268.html
About 90% of my email is FTMB notifications - that should help clog up the gubmint's black box! And think too of all the spam they'll get!
Analogue Boy
Bar 6
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 13,527
This could mean that terrorists will have to send messages and instructions through the mail in the form of greetings cards. Which rather jollies the whole thing up a bit doesn't it?
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
Happily, it seems that the Police State is hardly able to function for tying itself up in red tape. On the other hand, it would be nice if they had some time to catch ordinary villains now and again.... 
Police must fill in seven-page form to use binoculars
Police officers must fill in a seven page form if they want to use a pair of binoculars to watch a crime suspect.
By David Barrett, Home Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 8:40PM GMT 08 Nov 2008
The requirement has been attacked by critics as the latest example of excessive red tape, which they say is "emasculating" the police service.
Simon Reed, vice-chairman of the Police Federation, said: "There are all kinds of forms that must be filled in to do even a simple policing task. To mount a surveillance operation you have to fill in a seven page form, even if you just want to use a pair of binoculars. All this paperwork is emasculating the police service. Even if you just used your own eyesight, you would need it because that is classed as 'directed surveillance'."
The seven-page document is designed to ensure officers comply with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), the same controversial legislation which allows local councils to use surveillance powers for minor misdemeanours such as dog-fouling. In addition to the RIPA form, officers must fill out even more paperwork before they can carry out surveillance.
Mr Reed added: "You have to complete a risk assessment of the premises and then you have to do an operational order saying what staff, communications and vehicles you'll use, and so on. The authority for the surveillance operation has to be authorised by a superintendent.
"All the paperwork will take about a week to complete. We're not even talking about tackling major crime here. It will even be required to look at someone suspected of dealing drugs from their house, for example, where all the police come away with is a few bags of heroin.
"The days are gone when you got a phone call from an informant or a nosey neighbour and could just go down to have a look. It needs to be risk assessed and all the rest of it, even for something as simple as watching a suspect. Until they change that culture we are not going to make any progress. Just simplifying the forms is not the answer."
Mr Reed criticised the Home Office's record on reducing bureaucracy, even though there have been a series of pledges to reduce red tape.
Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve said: "We cannot make our police responsible for reducing crime and disorder and then tie their hands behind their backs. The police need not only the right resources to do their job but also the freedom to use them. We will revise the RIPA framework so that authorisation – and the associated paperwork – is not required for everyday policing."
The Home Office pledged a "bonfire of the paperwork" after official research in 2001 found that officers spent 43 per cent of their time in the police station.
"The Government have made a big deal of getting rid of the form we have to give to someone stopped in the street - but it was this Government which introduced that form in the first place," said Mr Reed.
"They have only paid lip service to the problem at the moment.
"Police should be held to account but we shouldn't be held to account by completing masses of paperwork."
A Home Office spokesman said: "The Government is determined to free up police officers to allow them to focus on the issues that matter to local communities. Since 2002 we have made nearly 9,000 forms obsolete across all forces. The recent policing green paper contained radical plans to cut red tape even further giving police the means to dramatically reduce form-filling bureaucracy."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... ulars.html
Police must fill in seven-page form to use binoculars
Police officers must fill in a seven page form if they want to use a pair of binoculars to watch a crime suspect.
By David Barrett, Home Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 8:40PM GMT 08 Nov 2008
The requirement has been attacked by critics as the latest example of excessive red tape, which they say is "emasculating" the police service.
Simon Reed, vice-chairman of the Police Federation, said: "There are all kinds of forms that must be filled in to do even a simple policing task. To mount a surveillance operation you have to fill in a seven page form, even if you just want to use a pair of binoculars. All this paperwork is emasculating the police service. Even if you just used your own eyesight, you would need it because that is classed as 'directed surveillance'."
The seven-page document is designed to ensure officers comply with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), the same controversial legislation which allows local councils to use surveillance powers for minor misdemeanours such as dog-fouling. In addition to the RIPA form, officers must fill out even more paperwork before they can carry out surveillance.
Mr Reed added: "You have to complete a risk assessment of the premises and then you have to do an operational order saying what staff, communications and vehicles you'll use, and so on. The authority for the surveillance operation has to be authorised by a superintendent.
"All the paperwork will take about a week to complete. We're not even talking about tackling major crime here. It will even be required to look at someone suspected of dealing drugs from their house, for example, where all the police come away with is a few bags of heroin.
"The days are gone when you got a phone call from an informant or a nosey neighbour and could just go down to have a look. It needs to be risk assessed and all the rest of it, even for something as simple as watching a suspect. Until they change that culture we are not going to make any progress. Just simplifying the forms is not the answer."
Mr Reed criticised the Home Office's record on reducing bureaucracy, even though there have been a series of pledges to reduce red tape.
Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve said: "We cannot make our police responsible for reducing crime and disorder and then tie their hands behind their backs. The police need not only the right resources to do their job but also the freedom to use them. We will revise the RIPA framework so that authorisation – and the associated paperwork – is not required for everyday policing."
The Home Office pledged a "bonfire of the paperwork" after official research in 2001 found that officers spent 43 per cent of their time in the police station.
"The Government have made a big deal of getting rid of the form we have to give to someone stopped in the street - but it was this Government which introduced that form in the first place," said Mr Reed.
"They have only paid lip service to the problem at the moment.
"Police should be held to account but we shouldn't be held to account by completing masses of paperwork."
A Home Office spokesman said: "The Government is determined to free up police officers to allow them to focus on the issues that matter to local communities. Since 2002 we have made nearly 9,000 forms obsolete across all forces. The recent policing green paper contained radical plans to cut red tape even further giving police the means to dramatically reduce form-filling bureaucracy."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... ulars.html
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
MPs seek to censor the media
EXCLUSIVE by Kim Sengupta
Monday, 10 November 2008
Britain's security agencies and police would be given unprecedented and legally binding powers to ban the media from reporting matters of national security, under proposals being discussed in Whitehall.
The Intelligence and Security Committee, the parliamentary watchdog of the intelligence and security agencies which has a cross-party membership from both Houses, wants to press ministers to introduce legislation that would prevent news outlets from reporting stories deemed by the Government to be against the interests of national security.
The committee also wants to censor reporting of police operations that are deemed to have implications for national security. The ISC is to recommend in its next report, out at the end of the year, that a commission be set up to look into its plans, according to senior Whitehall sources.
The ISC holds huge clout within Whitehall. It receives secret briefings from MI5, MI6 and GCHQ and is highly influential in forming government policy. Kim Howells, a respected former Foreign Office minister, was recently appointed its chairman. Under the existing voluntary code of conduct, known as the DA-Notice system, the Government can request that the media does not report a story. However, the committee's members are particularly worried about leaks, which, they believe, could derail investigations and the reporting of which needs to be banned by legislation.
Civil liberties groups say these restrictions would be "very dangerous" and "damaging for public accountability". They also point out that censoring journalists when the leaks come from officials is unjustified.
But the committee, in its last annual report, has already signalled its intention to press for changes. It states: "The current system for handling national security information through DA-Notices and the [intelligence and security] Agencies' relationship with the media more generally, is not working as effectively as it might and this is putting lives at risk." According to senior Whitehall sources the ISC is likely to advocate tighter controls on the DA-Notice system – formerly known as D-Notice – which operates in co-operation and consultation between the Government and the media.
The committee has focused on one particular case to highlight its concern: an Islamist plot to kidnap and murder a British serviceman in 2007, during which reporters were tipped off about the imminent arrest of suspects in Birmingham, a security operation known as "Gamble". The staff in the office of the then home secretary, John Reid, and the local police were among those accused of being responsible – charges they denied. An investigation by Scotland Yard failed to find the source of the leak.
The then director general of MI5, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, was among those who complained to the ISC. "We were very angry, but it is not clear who we should be angry with, that most of the story of the arrests in Op Gamble were in the media very, very fast ... So the case was potentially jeopardised by the exposure of what the story was. My officers and the police were jeopardised by them being on operations when the story broke. The strategy of the police for interrogating those arrested was blown out of the water, and my staff felt pretty depressed ... that this has happened."
The ISC report said the DA-Notice system "provides advice and guidance to the media about defence and counter-terrorism information, whilst the system is voluntary, has no legal authority, and the final responsibility for deciding whether or not to publish rests solely with the editor or publisher concerned. The system has been effective in the past. However, the Cabinet Secretary told us ... this is no longer the case: 'I think we have problems now.'"
The human rights lawyer Louise Christian said: "This would be a very dangerous development. We need media scrutiny for public accountability. We can see this from the example, for instance, of the PhD student in Nottingham who was banged up for six days without charge because he downloaded something from the internet for his thesis. The only reason this came to light was because of the media attention to the case."
A spokesman for the human rights group Liberty said: "There is a difficult balance between protecting integrity and keeping the public properly informed. Any extension of the DA-Notice scheme requires a more open parliamentary debate."
DA-Notice: a gagging by consent
The D-Notice system was set up in 1912 when the War Office (the Ministry of Defence in its previous incarnation) began issuing censorship orders to newspapers on stories involving national security.
In 1993 it became known as a DA-Notice with four senior civil servants, with an eminent military figure as secretary, and 13 members nominated by the media to form the Defence Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee.
Contrary to popular conception DA-Notices are a request and not legally enforceable. Civil servants fear making the agreement legally binding would lead to hostility from the media. There would be apprehension among journalists about new restrictions, as the committee has in recent times been robust in resisting pressure from the Government to send DA-Notices if it thinks the motives are political. At present most DA-Notices are issued regarding military missions, anti-terrorist operations at home and espionage.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 06607.html
EXCLUSIVE by Kim Sengupta
Monday, 10 November 2008
Britain's security agencies and police would be given unprecedented and legally binding powers to ban the media from reporting matters of national security, under proposals being discussed in Whitehall.
The Intelligence and Security Committee, the parliamentary watchdog of the intelligence and security agencies which has a cross-party membership from both Houses, wants to press ministers to introduce legislation that would prevent news outlets from reporting stories deemed by the Government to be against the interests of national security.
The committee also wants to censor reporting of police operations that are deemed to have implications for national security. The ISC is to recommend in its next report, out at the end of the year, that a commission be set up to look into its plans, according to senior Whitehall sources.
The ISC holds huge clout within Whitehall. It receives secret briefings from MI5, MI6 and GCHQ and is highly influential in forming government policy. Kim Howells, a respected former Foreign Office minister, was recently appointed its chairman. Under the existing voluntary code of conduct, known as the DA-Notice system, the Government can request that the media does not report a story. However, the committee's members are particularly worried about leaks, which, they believe, could derail investigations and the reporting of which needs to be banned by legislation.
Civil liberties groups say these restrictions would be "very dangerous" and "damaging for public accountability". They also point out that censoring journalists when the leaks come from officials is unjustified.
But the committee, in its last annual report, has already signalled its intention to press for changes. It states: "The current system for handling national security information through DA-Notices and the [intelligence and security] Agencies' relationship with the media more generally, is not working as effectively as it might and this is putting lives at risk." According to senior Whitehall sources the ISC is likely to advocate tighter controls on the DA-Notice system – formerly known as D-Notice – which operates in co-operation and consultation between the Government and the media.
The committee has focused on one particular case to highlight its concern: an Islamist plot to kidnap and murder a British serviceman in 2007, during which reporters were tipped off about the imminent arrest of suspects in Birmingham, a security operation known as "Gamble". The staff in the office of the then home secretary, John Reid, and the local police were among those accused of being responsible – charges they denied. An investigation by Scotland Yard failed to find the source of the leak.
The then director general of MI5, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, was among those who complained to the ISC. "We were very angry, but it is not clear who we should be angry with, that most of the story of the arrests in Op Gamble were in the media very, very fast ... So the case was potentially jeopardised by the exposure of what the story was. My officers and the police were jeopardised by them being on operations when the story broke. The strategy of the police for interrogating those arrested was blown out of the water, and my staff felt pretty depressed ... that this has happened."
The ISC report said the DA-Notice system "provides advice and guidance to the media about defence and counter-terrorism information, whilst the system is voluntary, has no legal authority, and the final responsibility for deciding whether or not to publish rests solely with the editor or publisher concerned. The system has been effective in the past. However, the Cabinet Secretary told us ... this is no longer the case: 'I think we have problems now.'"
The human rights lawyer Louise Christian said: "This would be a very dangerous development. We need media scrutiny for public accountability. We can see this from the example, for instance, of the PhD student in Nottingham who was banged up for six days without charge because he downloaded something from the internet for his thesis. The only reason this came to light was because of the media attention to the case."
A spokesman for the human rights group Liberty said: "There is a difficult balance between protecting integrity and keeping the public properly informed. Any extension of the DA-Notice scheme requires a more open parliamentary debate."
DA-Notice: a gagging by consent
The D-Notice system was set up in 1912 when the War Office (the Ministry of Defence in its previous incarnation) began issuing censorship orders to newspapers on stories involving national security.
In 1993 it became known as a DA-Notice with four senior civil servants, with an eminent military figure as secretary, and 13 members nominated by the media to form the Defence Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee.
Contrary to popular conception DA-Notices are a request and not legally enforceable. Civil servants fear making the agreement legally binding would lead to hostility from the media. There would be apprehension among journalists about new restrictions, as the committee has in recent times been robust in resisting pressure from the Government to send DA-Notices if it thinks the motives are political. At present most DA-Notices are issued regarding military missions, anti-terrorist operations at home and espionage.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 06607.html
Analogue Boy
Bar 6
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 13,527
That would be number 8 crossed off Naomi Wolf's '10 Steps to creating a fascist state'.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment
OneWingedBird
Beloved of Ra
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2003
- Messages
- 15,431
not particularly appropriate use of CS gas, not just against an unarmed manm but the wrong man... who wasn't actually under arrest at the time either!
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... 4674762.jp
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... 4674762.jp
A
Anonymous
Guest
MPs seek to censor the media
Britain's security agencies and police would be given unprecedented and legally binding powers to ban the media from reporting matters of national security, under proposals being discussed in Whitehall.
The Intelligence and Security Committee, the parliamentary watchdog of the intelligence and security agencies which has a cross-party membership from both Houses, wants to press ministers to introduce legislation that would prevent news outlets from reporting stories deemed by the Government to be against the interests of national security.
The committee also wants to censor reporting of police operations that are deemed to have implications for national security. The ISC is to recommend in its next report, out at the end of the year, that a commission be set up to look into its plans, according to senior Whitehall sources.
The ISC holds huge clout within Whitehall. It receives secret briefings from MI5, MI6 and GCHQ and is highly influential in forming government policy. Kim Howells, a respected former Foreign Office minister, was recently appointed its chairman. Under the existing voluntary code of conduct, known as the DA-Notice system, the Government can request that the media does not report a story. However, the committee's members are particularly worried about leaks, which, they believe, could derail investigations and the reporting of which needs to be banned by legislation.
Civil liberties groups say these restrictions would be "very dangerous" and "damaging for public accountability". They also point out that censoring journalists when the leaks come from officials is unjustified.
But the committee, in its last annual report, has already signalled its intention to press for changes. It states: "The current system for handling national security information through DA-Notices and the [intelligence and security] Agencies' relationship with the media more generally, is not working as effectively as it might and this is putting lives at risk." According to senior Whitehall sources the ISC is likely to advocate tighter controls on the DA-Notice system – formerly known as D-Notice – which operates in co-operation and consultation between the Government and the media.
The committee has focused on one particular case to highlight its concern: an Islamist plot to kidnap and murder a British serviceman in 2007, during which reporters were tipped off about the imminent arrest of suspects in Birmingham, a security operation known as "Gamble". The staff in the office of the then home secretary, John Reid, and the local police were among those accused of being responsible – charges they denied. An investigation by Scotland Yard failed to find the source of the leak.
The then director general of MI5, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, was among those who complained to the ISC. "We were very angry, but it is not clear who we should be angry with, that most of the story of the arrests in Op Gamble were in the media very, very fast ... So the case was potentially jeopardised by the exposure of what the story was. My officers and the police were jeopardised by them being on operations when the story broke. The strategy of the police for interrogating those arrested was blown out of the water, and my staff felt pretty depressed ... that this has happened."
The ISC report said the DA-Notice system "provides advice and guidance to the media about defence and counter-terrorism information, whilst the system is voluntary, has no legal authority, and the final responsibility for deciding whether or not to publish rests solely with the editor or publisher concerned. The system has been effective in the past. However, the Cabinet Secretary told us ... this is no longer the case: 'I think we have problems now.'"
The human rights lawyer Louise Christian said: "This would be a very dangerous development. We need media scrutiny for public accountability. We can see this from the example, for instance, of the PhD student in Nottingham who was banged up for six days without charge because he downloaded something from the internet for his thesis. The only reason this came to light was because of the media attention to the case."
A spokesman for the human rights group Liberty said: "There is a difficult balance between protecting integrity and keeping the public properly informed. Any extension of the DA-Notice scheme requires a more open parliamentary debate."
DA-Notice: a gagging by consent
The D-Notice system was set up in 1912 when the War Office (the Ministry of Defence in its previous incarnation) began issuing censorship orders to newspapers on stories involving national security.
In 1993 it became known as a DA-Notice with four senior civil servants, with an eminent military figure as secretary, and 13 members nominated by the media to form the Defence Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee.
Contrary to popular conception DA-Notices are a request and not legally enforceable. Civil servants fear making the agreement legally binding would lead to hostility from the media. There would be apprehension among journalists about new restrictions, as the committee has in recent times been robust in resisting pressure from the Government to send DA-Notices if it thinks the motives are political. At present most DA-Notices are issued regarding military missions, anti-terrorist operations at home and espionage.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... tindex=170
censorship in the name of national security oh pleases why more censorship and there need to be public accountability and this form of censorship is dangerous and not needed and arnt thay are laws that already do this anyway but the police have shown themselves to be untrustworthy over the definition of national security.
Britain's security agencies and police would be given unprecedented and legally binding powers to ban the media from reporting matters of national security, under proposals being discussed in Whitehall.
The Intelligence and Security Committee, the parliamentary watchdog of the intelligence and security agencies which has a cross-party membership from both Houses, wants to press ministers to introduce legislation that would prevent news outlets from reporting stories deemed by the Government to be against the interests of national security.
The committee also wants to censor reporting of police operations that are deemed to have implications for national security. The ISC is to recommend in its next report, out at the end of the year, that a commission be set up to look into its plans, according to senior Whitehall sources.
The ISC holds huge clout within Whitehall. It receives secret briefings from MI5, MI6 and GCHQ and is highly influential in forming government policy. Kim Howells, a respected former Foreign Office minister, was recently appointed its chairman. Under the existing voluntary code of conduct, known as the DA-Notice system, the Government can request that the media does not report a story. However, the committee's members are particularly worried about leaks, which, they believe, could derail investigations and the reporting of which needs to be banned by legislation.
Civil liberties groups say these restrictions would be "very dangerous" and "damaging for public accountability". They also point out that censoring journalists when the leaks come from officials is unjustified.
But the committee, in its last annual report, has already signalled its intention to press for changes. It states: "The current system for handling national security information through DA-Notices and the [intelligence and security] Agencies' relationship with the media more generally, is not working as effectively as it might and this is putting lives at risk." According to senior Whitehall sources the ISC is likely to advocate tighter controls on the DA-Notice system – formerly known as D-Notice – which operates in co-operation and consultation between the Government and the media.
The committee has focused on one particular case to highlight its concern: an Islamist plot to kidnap and murder a British serviceman in 2007, during which reporters were tipped off about the imminent arrest of suspects in Birmingham, a security operation known as "Gamble". The staff in the office of the then home secretary, John Reid, and the local police were among those accused of being responsible – charges they denied. An investigation by Scotland Yard failed to find the source of the leak.
The then director general of MI5, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, was among those who complained to the ISC. "We were very angry, but it is not clear who we should be angry with, that most of the story of the arrests in Op Gamble were in the media very, very fast ... So the case was potentially jeopardised by the exposure of what the story was. My officers and the police were jeopardised by them being on operations when the story broke. The strategy of the police for interrogating those arrested was blown out of the water, and my staff felt pretty depressed ... that this has happened."
The ISC report said the DA-Notice system "provides advice and guidance to the media about defence and counter-terrorism information, whilst the system is voluntary, has no legal authority, and the final responsibility for deciding whether or not to publish rests solely with the editor or publisher concerned. The system has been effective in the past. However, the Cabinet Secretary told us ... this is no longer the case: 'I think we have problems now.'"
The human rights lawyer Louise Christian said: "This would be a very dangerous development. We need media scrutiny for public accountability. We can see this from the example, for instance, of the PhD student in Nottingham who was banged up for six days without charge because he downloaded something from the internet for his thesis. The only reason this came to light was because of the media attention to the case."
A spokesman for the human rights group Liberty said: "There is a difficult balance between protecting integrity and keeping the public properly informed. Any extension of the DA-Notice scheme requires a more open parliamentary debate."
DA-Notice: a gagging by consent
The D-Notice system was set up in 1912 when the War Office (the Ministry of Defence in its previous incarnation) began issuing censorship orders to newspapers on stories involving national security.
In 1993 it became known as a DA-Notice with four senior civil servants, with an eminent military figure as secretary, and 13 members nominated by the media to form the Defence Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee.
Contrary to popular conception DA-Notices are a request and not legally enforceable. Civil servants fear making the agreement legally binding would lead to hostility from the media. There would be apprehension among journalists about new restrictions, as the committee has in recent times been robust in resisting pressure from the Government to send DA-Notices if it thinks the motives are political. At present most DA-Notices are issued regarding military missions, anti-terrorist operations at home and espionage.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... tindex=170
censorship in the name of national security oh pleases why more censorship and there need to be public accountability and this form of censorship is dangerous and not needed and arnt thay are laws that already do this anyway but the police have shown themselves to be untrustworthy over the definition of national security.
maximus otter
Recovering policeman
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2001
- Messages
- 13,944
Google tool Flu Trends will track illness
Google has developed a new tool that will help health authorities track illness and could serve as an early warning system for flu outbreaks.
"Flu trends" is based on the idea that people who feel sick will probably turn to the internet for information.
The tool uses search terms that people enter into the Google search engine, such as muscle aches, thermometer and chest congestion, to work out where flu clusters are gathering. It charts their ebb and flow, broken down by regions and states and will then notify the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the US.
Early tests suggest that the service may be able to detect regional outbreaks of the flu a week to 10 days before they are normally reported by the CDC.
Dr. Lyn Finelli, chief of influenza surveillance at CDC, said: "One thing we found last year when we validated this model is it tended to predict surveillance data. The data are really, really timely. They were able to tell us on a day-to-day basis the relative direction of flu activity for a given area. They were about a week ahead of us. They could be used... as early warning signal for flu activity.
"The earlier the warning, the earlier prevention and control measures can be put in place, and this could prevent cases of influenza,"
The company claims it will keep user information confidential.
The tool was developed by Google.org, the company's philanthropic unit.
Between 5 and 20 percent of the nation's population contracts the flu each year, she said, leading to an average of roughly 36,000 deaths.
"This is an example where Google can use the incredible systems that we have to come up with an interesting, predictive result," said Eric E. Schmidt, Google's chief executive. "From a technological perspective, it is the beginning."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/3443231/Google-tool-Flu-Trends-will-track-illness.html
A harmless, nay beneficial, use here, but the potential for misuse is high.
Imagine a planned demo in London by members of a firm from, say, Manchester.
Google detects multiple searches for the firm's name, train times between the cities, map requests for a given street/route, weather reports for certain postcodes, etc.
Google then passes the info to the authorities, either willingly or under compulsion...
maximus otter
Google has developed a new tool that will help health authorities track illness and could serve as an early warning system for flu outbreaks.
"Flu trends" is based on the idea that people who feel sick will probably turn to the internet for information.
The tool uses search terms that people enter into the Google search engine, such as muscle aches, thermometer and chest congestion, to work out where flu clusters are gathering. It charts their ebb and flow, broken down by regions and states and will then notify the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the US.
Early tests suggest that the service may be able to detect regional outbreaks of the flu a week to 10 days before they are normally reported by the CDC.
Dr. Lyn Finelli, chief of influenza surveillance at CDC, said: "One thing we found last year when we validated this model is it tended to predict surveillance data. The data are really, really timely. They were able to tell us on a day-to-day basis the relative direction of flu activity for a given area. They were about a week ahead of us. They could be used... as early warning signal for flu activity.
"The earlier the warning, the earlier prevention and control measures can be put in place, and this could prevent cases of influenza,"
The company claims it will keep user information confidential.
The tool was developed by Google.org, the company's philanthropic unit.
Between 5 and 20 percent of the nation's population contracts the flu each year, she said, leading to an average of roughly 36,000 deaths.
"This is an example where Google can use the incredible systems that we have to come up with an interesting, predictive result," said Eric E. Schmidt, Google's chief executive. "From a technological perspective, it is the beginning."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/3443231/Google-tool-Flu-Trends-will-track-illness.html
A harmless, nay beneficial, use here, but the potential for misuse is high.
Imagine a planned demo in London by members of a firm from, say, Manchester.
Google detects multiple searches for the firm's name, train times between the cities, map requests for a given street/route, weather reports for certain postcodes, etc.
Google then passes the info to the authorities, either willingly or under compulsion...
maximus otter
Analogue Boy
Bar 6
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 13,527
Well if Google are looking at the stuff my work colleagues and I are looking at (erm I mean researching), they must be getting very worried about the rise of zombies in the Midlands area of the UK.
OneWingedBird
Beloved of Ra
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2003
- Messages
- 15,431
They're still touting the line that tasers are a less lethal alternative to firearms... but how often will we see them used, when a firearm wouldn't have been?
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2003
- Messages
- 1,991
People have a very negative image of Tasers (thanks largely to negative media coverage and a few cases of abuse).
In fact, even sceptics have to conclude that they do save lives. In terms of apprehending suspects, they appear to be less likely to cause death or serious injury than 'traditional' methods such as batons or manual restraint. And pepper spray, the main competitor, is equally questionable.
If the London police had had Tasers, the Jean-Charles de Menezes might still eb alive.
But I guess it's easier to do a scare story mentioning 50,000 volts. WHo wants to hear that the police have a safer and more effective tool?
In fact, even sceptics have to conclude that they do save lives. In terms of apprehending suspects, they appear to be less likely to cause death or serious injury than 'traditional' methods such as batons or manual restraint. And pepper spray, the main competitor, is equally questionable.
If the London police had had Tasers, the Jean-Charles de Menezes might still eb alive.
But I guess it's easier to do a scare story mentioning 50,000 volts. WHo wants to hear that the police have a safer and more effective tool?