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

Britain: Police State?

techybloke666 said:
What's wrong with driving below the speed limit?

your still deliberatley missing the point Dr B !

people will speed its a fact, it happens, it can be stopped by technology ( speed bumps and chicanes car limiters, etc etc ) that doesnt fill the coffers of the policy police or it can be done to fill their pockets, speed bumps slow down but raise no money, anpr sped camera's make the boss |£138,000 a year plus benefits.

which serves the greater good ?

Unless you want to cover every stretch of road with speed bumps or have chicanes on motorways, I'd suggest that the cameras with added fines serve the greater good. You can only be an idiot so many times before you realise it's hitting your bank balance.
 
I don't see why anyone should be caught any more, AA road maps have details of every speed camera in the country and where they are located. Also i think (but don't quote me) that any good sat nav will have the same information as well.
 
techybloke666 said:
What's wrong with driving below the speed limit?

your still deliberatley missing the point Dr B !

people will speed its a fact, it happens, it can be stopped by technology ( speed bumps and chicanes car limiters, etc etc ) that doesnt fill the coffers of the policy police or it can be done to fill their pockets, speed bumps slow down but raise no money, anpr sped camera's make the boss |£138,000 a year plus benefits.

which serves the greater good ?

Perhaps you could view this as a self-funding way of installing traffic surveillance on a wide scale.
 
What about the way the police go about it?
When I was "caught" speeding, I remember the stretch well. It was a 30 zone, just outside a village, with very good view to either sides and I was always going slightly faster down that stretch. When I say slightly, I mean I did about 35 - 30something, reason for this is that it was a straight road and it was very boring to go 30 when there was nobody about. The houses were about 50 meters away from the road. However I didn't really want to go too fast and hence kept my eye on the speedometer.
That day however I got caught by what I don't know, because I never saw a policeman, a warning sign or a high viz jacket, as there are not many places to hide on that stretch I guessed that "he" was hiding behind a bush [one of the only bushes on the stretch. Considering that I didn't know I was done, I kept continuing with my speed until the A road started.
When I received the notice of 3 penalty points and a statementthat I was doing 40mph, I couldn't believe it. I'm not denying that I was faster but definitely not exactly 40mph, I know that for a fact. There was no picture included.
It became even more weird when my colleague who drives the same way and who speeds down that road doing normally 50mph, had also 40mph on his sheet.
He said he never does exactly 40.
When we tried to check what we could do, there wasa note on the back saying that "trying to deny the charges I could end up with a £1000 fine or even jail!!!!"
Guess what, with nothing in my hand and not wanting to go to jail I paid the fine and took the points.
What I am trying to say here is that:
a) Two people are sure that the speed recorded was wrong
b) Slight suspicion over the same speed for different style drivers
c) Threats that make you not want to question the decision
d) No point, apart from money making in a scheme where people can keep speeding after being snapped, because no police was visible. For 2 weeks I kept speeding down that road because that's how long it takes for the letter to arrive, so surely nobody was interested in anyone's "safety" here?
 
I don't see why anyone should be caught any more, AA road maps have details of every speed camera in the country and where they are located. Also i think (but don't quote me) that any good sat nav will have the same information as well.

as things are now you a probably right if you have all the GPS stuff etc you can buy for your car.

but if all the roads everywhere are monitored , how long before you ( the careful driver ) slips up ???
 
but if all the roads everywhere are monitored , how long before you ( the careful driver ) slips up ???

But thats my point, even if your a careful driver, if you have the maps and the GPS you should never be caught. You know where they are. Frankly if you have all this information and you still speed then you deserve the ticket and probably a little extra for being stupid ;)

Of course i am not talking about people who are getting tickets because of what appears to be faulty readings from cameras as it seems from Dingo667's post. That's a different matter.
 
I see what you meen Feen, if one always watched his speedo 24/7 every 20 secs when driving then you should never go over a speed limit.

yep that will work you won't get fined. you may accidentally run a few people over tho whilst studying your speedo with such gusto.

and are all the roads in the UK accident hotspots ?

the placement of camer'as is allegedly at accident hotapots where a number of accidents have occured, that was why they were called safety camera's. if they were called police boss cartax camera's then I guess they could just go everywhere, but I wouldnt have thought the police would get away with such marketing initiatives.
 
Techy, as I said in an earlier post, I think you need to separate your grievances about speed cameras from your general concerns about a surveillance state. Speed cameras are easy to avoid by driving at, or just below, the speed limit. CCTV cameras and the like track you regardless.

In my experience sticking to the speed limit, especially in towns, is not especially difficult and does not require you to fixate on the speedometer. You tend to know how your car feels at 30, at 35 and so on. I don't have a great deal of sympathy for those who speed in built up areas (as opposed to motorways and other roads) as they are putting pedestrians and cyclists at serious risk.
 
techybloke666 said:
I see what you meen Feen, if one always watched his speedo 24/7 every 20 secs when driving then you should never go over a speed limit.

yep that will work you won't get fined. you may accidentally run a few people over tho whilst studying your speedo with such gusto.

and are all the roads in the UK accident hotspots ?

the placement of camer'as is allegedly at accident hotapots where a number of accidents have occured, that was why they were called safety camera's. if they were called police boss cartax camera's then I guess they could just go everywhere, but I wouldnt have thought the police would get away with such marketing initiatives.

In essence, I agree with your point that speed cameras are all about money, but I do think you are 'over-egging the pudding' with this idea that if you keep looking at your speedo, you will inevitably cause an accident.
Personally, I watch my own speedo a lot, and I regard myself as a very safe driver. I haven't been fined yet for speeding (so far), and haven't knocked anybody over (so far).
If you speed through a populated area, you are only asking for trouble.
Speeding is perhaps only acceptable on a motorway, and that is where fewer speed cameras are to be found anyway.
 
Of course, speed cameras require advanced thought about placement ...

There was a big debate in my local newspaper when I lived in Belsize Park. A speed camera was installed, pointing up a very steep hill (middle to upper stretch of Hampstead High Street) and many folk pointed out that it might - just might - catch speeders if it pointed downhill! One local wag suggested that the police were intending to catch motorists whose car used a jet engine!
 
Buying some wine? Spy cameras will be watching
By James Slack
Last updated at 1:43 AM on 21st February 2009

Big Brother CCTV cameras are to be fitted inside shops and supermarkets on the orders of the state to keep track on anybody buying alcohol.

A law is being quietly pushed through Parliament giving councils the power to order licensed premises to fit the surveillance cameras. Pubs will also be covered.

The footage of people innocently buying a bottle of wine in a shop or a pint of beer in a bar must be stored for at least 60 days, and be handed over to the police on demand.

Critics say it will mean that citizens will now be tracked everywhere they go. The UK already has more than four million closed-circuit TV cameras covering the streets – the largest number in the world.

Cars are also automatically monitored using cameras that check registration plates. Now shops and pubs will also be covered.

The measures form part of the Policing and Crime Bill, but have not been highlighted by Ministers.

Under a code of conduct, which will be enforced by the Bill, any business that intends to sell alcohol will have to agree to install the cameras
.

Phil Booth, of the NO2ID privacy campaign, said: ‘We are already a country with more CCTV cameras than anywhere else in the civilised world, but this law is systemising the surveillance of a nation. People will be treated like suspects wherever they go.’

James Brokenshire, a Tory home affairs spokesman, said: ‘The risk is that these provisions could be used as a way to impose blanket CCTV requirements where they just aren’t necessary. This mustn’t be another way of extending the surveillance society by the back door.’

Earlier this week, the Mail revealed how police were warning pubs they would not support their licensing applications unless they agreed to train the intrusive cameras on their customers.

The first blanket policy has been introduced in the London borough of Islington, where all applicants wanting a licence to sell alcohol are being told they must fit CCTV.

Other forces are adopting similar tactics. But the planned new law goes much further, as it will allow councils – which ultimately hand out all licences – to insist on the CCTV cameras.

Ministers have also been restricting the public’s right to ‘watch the watchers’.

Earlier this week, a law came into force which carries a maximum ten-year jail term for anybody taking a picture of a police officer if it is ‘likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism’.

Home Office Minister Alan Campbell, who is piloting the CCTV measure through the Commons, recently admitted that he couldn’t remember the last time he was in a pub. :roll:

Mark Hastings, spokesman for the British Beer and Pub Association, said: ‘It’s an extraordinary admission from someone who is proposing measures that, on the Government’s own admission, will cost the pub sector hundreds of millions of pounds a year.

‘It shows how disconnected he is from the realities of what it’s like trying to stay in business in the current environment.’

The Home Office said the clause in the Bill was intended to allow police and councils to target premises where problems were occurring, such as underage sales.

It was not meant to penalise businesses that act responsibly. It will be up to councils to decide which premises must have cameras, and they will be trained on the areas where alcohol is sold.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ching.html

Next thing you know, you'll be getting letters from your doctor:
"It's come to my attention that you are purchasing large quantities of alcohol. This can have serious health implications; please make an appointment to discuss the potential problems..."
:(
 
rynner2 said:
Buying some wine? Spy cameras will be watching
By James Slack
Last updated at 1:43 AM on 21st February 2009

Big Brother CCTV cameras are to be fitted inside shops and supermarkets on the orders of the state to keep track on anybody buying alcohol.


The Home Office said the clause in the Bill was intended to allow police and councils to target premises where problems were occurring, such as underage sales.

Once again, an ill-thought out intrusion by cameras in our lives and there doesn't seem to be a strong enough reason for this apart from the heinous threat to society from underage alcohol sales (which have probably been going on since the Rise of Ancient Rome) They seem to have forgotten that people buy soft drinks, snacks, chocolate and cigarettes without going near the liquor.

And also, there are several convenience stores that sell general items but also sell alcohol - like T£$C0 extra or Sainsbury's Local. I really can't see any point to this expensive rollout apart from the idea of intimidating the general population with the message 'We're watching you'.

It's getting beyond a joke now as new intrusions and revelations come on a daily basis - so much so that the Guardian online has set up it's own civil liberties section.
Wouldn't it be ironic if they were using revenue from liquor and fag duty to fund this in some way?

I'm going to get a V mask while it's still legal.
 
Making CCTV in pubs obligatory is a new trend and while making it a condition of obtaining an alcohol license might be new, in practice I don't think it'll make much difference since most shops that sell alcohol have CCTV already (as do a lot of others) to catch shoplifters etc.
 
Can we have CCTV installed in all the bars frequented by MPs and the Peers? Then we could see how much the slimy fucks drink and which lobbyists are trying to destroy our political system.

Making CCTV in pubs obligatory is a new trend and while making it a condition of obtaining an alcohol license might be new, in practice I don't think it'll make much difference since most shops that sell alcohol have CCTV already (as do a lot of others) to catch shoplifters etc.

No but its the restrictions, I think the Met wanted head and shoulders shots of the clientele for fucks sake. Most CCTV I've seen in pubs points at those areas where the staff can't see (small rooms, outside in the yard etc. etc.) and are there as a deterrent for burglars etc. This seems to be a lot worse.

Out of interest, what has changed in this country to make our political caste so keen to impose draconian measures on the populace? Is the threat of terrorism any worse now than it was in the 70s and 80s? Or is there something nastier at play? Or have our politicos just become the worst of micro-managing middle management MBA fueled fucktards?
 
And the voices of reason....

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's radio show As it Happens did a great job covering the new British law that makes it a crime to take a picture of a police officer or a building, where that picture might be useful in "planning an act of terrorism." First, they interviewed Peter Murray, Vice-President of the National Union of Journalists, who, predictably, worries that his members will find themselves with arrest-records as terrorists for violating the law.

But then, they talked to Peter Smyth, Chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, who also thinks the law is ridiculous -- and this is just stupendous. Smyth says that there's no evidence that terrorists use photographs to plan attacks, admits that this is an invitation for scared officers to abuse the law, and says that it will needlessly create conflict with journalists and the public.

The program tried to locate someone -- anyone -- who supported the law, but no one was forthcoming.

Source
 
[...] But then, they talked to Peter Smyth, Chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, who also thinks the law is ridiculous -- and this is just stupendous. Smyth says that there's no evidence that terrorists use photographs to plan attacks, admits that this is an invitation for scared officers to abuse the law, and says that it will needlessly create conflict with journalists and the public.

While laudable, what's the chances of this particular "voice of reason" being heard in the very country that the legislation is being enacted?

So if, for instance, a copper is filmed by a member of the public beating the crud out of a member of the public. That filmer can also be taken in under a really wide interpretation of the Act. This is more likely the desired effect, rather than any supposed terrorism-thwarting.

If Smyth - a high-ranking and very public officer - is against this act, perhaps we should look at the politicians who want it rather than P.C. Plod.
 
Some people have wondered why the Survellance State needs to know the details of everyone in the country. Why we need to be monitored at all times. What is coming down the pipe?
It's quite clear now that we are ALL suspects now. Even the comfy middle classes.

Britain faces summer of rage -

Police are preparing for a "summer of rage" as victims of the economic downturn take to the streets to demonstrate against financial institutions, the Guardian has learned.

Britain's most senior police officer with responsibility for public order raised the spectre of a return of the riots of the 1980s, with people who have lost their jobs, homes or savings becoming "footsoldiers" in a wave of potentially violent mass protests.

Superintendent David Hartshorn, who heads the Metropolitan police's public order branch, told the Guardian that middle-class individuals who would never have considered joining demonstrations may now seek to vent their anger through protests this year.

He said that banks, particularly those that still pay large bonuses despite receiving billions in taxpayer money, had become "viable targets". So too had the headquarters of multinational companies and other financial institutions in the City which are being blamed for the financial crisis.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/2 ... -recession


that middle-class individuals who would never have considered joining demonstrations may now seek to vent their anger through protests this year.


Shouldn't that be 'may now seek to legally demonstrate through legitimate protests'?

Don't bother to take your camera.
 
jimv1 said:
...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/2 ... -recession


that middle-class individuals who would never have considered joining demonstrations may now seek to vent their anger through protests this year.
Shouldn't that be 'may now seek to legally demonstrate through legitimate protests'?

Don't bother to take your camera.
Has J. G. Ballard's revolt of the English Middle Classes come at last?

It may just be hype from the ACPO chaps, of course. Charlie Brooker (who may be destined to become another chronicler of the coming super-recession), has described this period as a sort of "phoney war".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/23/television-nudity-recession-credit-crunch

Television has the perfect confidence-boosting answer to credit crunch despair - full-frontal nudity

Which would you rather do? Strip for a camera now and then, or work full-time in an office sitting beside a perspiring Coldplay fan?

The Guardian, Charlie Brooker. 23 February 2009

Feeling helpless? Hollow? Futile and joyless? Crushed? Downtrodden? Just plain lousy? I could go on, but the list would only depress you. Depressed? Of course you are. There's an eerie calm in the air as we glide through what feels like a brief "phoney war" period before the CREDIT CRUNCH (which from now on, according to official guidelines, must be capitalised each time it appears in print, just to make it even more frightening) . . . before the CREDIT CRUNCH starts to bite for real and your local park becomes a shantytown filled with dog-faced people in rags prostituting themselves for a thimbleful of water.

...
Perhaps, this is just the police putting out their stall and getting a first shot across the bows, in the propaganda war, preparatory to the possible introduction of new restrictions on gatherings and travel, in the future?

Will the Women's Institute, The Rotary Club, The British Lions, The Round Table and the Scouts, all become proscribed and banned organisations, I wonder? :confused:
 
From some of the comments I've seen re 'The Summer of Rage', it seems to be galvansing people to think about taking action in a way they hadn't thought of before. I'm puzzled why they made this announcement although it does point to the police standpoint as beicoming more politicized.

And today on the daily rollout of increased surveillance measures, we see plans to spy on the british public using remote air drones. What is so potentially scary about the british public that they're going all MegaCity 1 on us?

Last night, I was watching the news coverage of Binyam Mohamed alighting from the plane. Oddly, the BBC blurred out everything BUT him, as there were police present. Switching over to ITV, the pictures of the uniformed police were clear. What exactly are the rules of news reports featuring pics of police now? Is that illegal?
 
jimv1 said:
And today on the daily rollout of increased surveillance measures, we see plans to spy on the british public using remote air drones. What is so potentially scary about the british public that they're going all MegaCity 1 on us?

Perhaps the government is scared of losing the next election? No doubt, they will try all the usual dodgy tactics as we get closer to the next election, and they may even do a bit of ballot rigging - who knows?
Of course, the more of this they do, the more likely they are to cause the British public to rise up in outrage...
 
... which will allow the politicians to take away even more of our civil liberties.
 
Which, if things get that bad, could lead to violent, bloody revolution.
Crazy.
All it needs is for common sense to prevail, and for democracy to be reinstated, and the government need not fear the public again.
:roll:
 
Mythopoeika said:
Which, if things get that bad, could lead to violent, bloody revolution.
Nah, this is Britain. It could lead to loud tutting and strongly-worded letters to the Telegraph.

Unless Noel Edmonds and his Sky1 HQ are channelling the spirit of Che Guevara.

Could be on to something there. He's got a beard.
 
Privacy must be sacrificed in fight against terror, says former security chief
Innocent people's privacy will have to be sacrificed to allow security services greater access to personal information to fight terrorism, a former Whitehall intelligence co-ordinator has said.

Last Updated: 7:32AM GMT 25 Feb 2009

Sir David Omond, a leading architect of the government's national security strategy, warned that more "intrusive methods of surveillance" are needed to tackle the threat posed by modern terrorists.

In a new research paper, he sets out plans for the state to mine data held by public and private bodies, such as emails, phone records and travel information.

He said that the new methods would mean "breaking everyday moral rules" in order to track criminal organisations.

The newly published report for the Institute for Public Policy argues that the measures are essential but must be carried out with attention to morality and human rights in order to maintain public trust.

Sir David said: "Modern intelligence access will often involve intrusive methods of surveillance and investigation, accepting that, in some respects, this may have to be at the expense of some aspects of privacy rights.

"This is a hard choice that goes against current calls to curb the so-called surveillance society, but it is greatly preferable to tinkering with the rule of law, or derogating from fundamental human rights.

"Being able to demonstrate proper legal authorisation and appropriate oversight of the use of such intrusive intelligence activity may become a major future issue for the intelligence community, if the public at large is to be convinced of the desirability of such intelligence capability."

Sir David said that the security services increasingly require access to "protected information" in order to fight extremists and terrorists.

This includes information held in national records covered by data protection legislation, or by global companies where its availability is subject to international agreements.

Although police and security services have always had access to such information on named suspects, the use of modern data mining also involves the examination of innocent people.

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

So we weren't being paranoid after all... :roll:
 
Privacy sacrificed. Human Right denied.

So...how safe is the data?

Justice Secretary Jack Straw has been the victim of Nigerian fraudsters who sent out hundreds of e-mails in his name asking for money.

The e-mails claimed he had lost his wallet on charity work in Africa and needed 3,500 US dollars to get home.

Messages headed the Right Hon Jack Straw MP were sent to council bosses, government chiefs and others.

The fraudsters are thought to have hacked into computers at Mr Straw's Blackburn constituency office.

Mr Straw has confirmed the e-mails had been sent to a "significant number of people" in his address book but he said there were no security issues as it was his Blackburn e-mail address rather than his ministerial account that was targeted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7908498.stm
 
stuneville said:
Nah, this is Britain. It could lead to loud tutting and strongly-worded letters to the Telegraph.

Nah, this is Britain. Have you seen some of the hate-filled comments and anger on other sites? People don't write chummy letters to the Telegraph anymore.
 
Mythopoeika said:
All it needs is for common sense to prevail, and for democracy to be reinstated, and the government need not fear the public again.
:roll:

To quote the eponymous V, "Government should fear the people".

We put them in power and it should be us to remover them from it if they're not behaving the way we expect.

I've had enough of being spoon fed lies used for the sole purpose of promoting fear which aids in the daily restrictions of our rights and freedoms.

Suddenly we're living in a world that is populated by a global terrorist network that doesn't seem capable of equaling the IRA campaign of the eighties and early nineties?

I mean seriously, think about it. Are we to believe that the security forces are now able to stop every single terrorist act before it gets beyond the planning stage?

I'm not saying I'm unhappy that highstreets up and down the country aren't in flames, but come on. Either these terrorists cells are completely unorganised or they simply don't exist in the numbers we've been lead to believe.

This isn't just a domestic situation though. It seems the whole of the western world is being pushed toward an Orwellian distopia to the point where I'm starting to think he was from the future and trying to warn us.

The New World Order is alive and well in this passive dictatorship.
 
river_styx said:
Suddenly we're living in a world that is populated by a global terrorist network that doesn't seem capable of equaling the IRA campaign of the eighties and early nineties?

I don't disagree with the idea that the whole thing has been over hyped for political reasons but I don't think you can use the IRA and its campaigns as a datum.The IRA was a relatively small organisation with definite aims regarding a very specific geographical and political area. It had a geographically concentrated power base and was organised on strict military principles with recognisable chains of command. Similarly it's main target was both obvious and only next door. It was the limited nature of it's aims and proximity to its target that made the IRA so effective.

Wildfire terrorism, as promoted by neo-Nazi groups in the US in the 80's and 90's, is in one way more frightening, because it's targets are incredibly disparate and it's actual aims vague. However, although psychologically powerful, it tends to be less effective in reality because the lack of structure makes the transference of materiel and experience, more haphazard. The present conflict is far closer to this in style and execution.

So, although I completely agree that there has been a tendency to exaggerate the threat for political reasons I don't think that the fact that bombs aren't going of very other week is any indication of the fact that there is no threat at all. The boy who cried wolf got his come-uppance but that doesn't mean you can file wolf next to unicorn.
 
I suspect that if the government hadn't told so many lies in the past people would more lenient with them. Anyway, a word from Henry Porter

"Once an individual has been assigned a unique index number, it is possible to accurately retrieve data across numerous databases and build a picture of that individual's life that was not authorised in the original consent for data collection," says Sir David Omand in a report for the Institute for Public Policy research.

This is not some wild fantasy. It is the world that we are about to move into and which Jack Straw's coroners and justice bill, the ID Cards Act, RIPA laws and the EBorders scheme have patiently constructed while we have been living in an idiots' paradise of easy money.

We have a choice: either we can believe that the British state is peculiarly immune to tyrannical instincts that are beginning to show in this government or we can now start to oppose what is going on. We have a very short time to save our society from this nightmare, as has been made clear by Sir Ken Macdonald, the former DPP, Dame Stella Rimington, the former head of MI5, and the House of Lord constitutional committee.

Source

I've skimmed the report, it does mention trust as being vital and the big issue now is that trust in the government and its agents is low, nobody trusts that bunch of lying, money grabbing fuckwits.
 
Spookdaddy said:
river_styx said:
Suddenly we're living in a world that is populated by a global terrorist network that doesn't seem capable of equaling the IRA campaign of the eighties and early nineties?

I don't disagree with the idea that the whole thing has been over hyped for political reasons but I don't think you can use the IRA and its campaigns as a datum.The IRA was a relatively small organisation with definite aims regarding a very specific geographical and political area. It had a geographically concentrated power base and was organised on strict military principles with recognisable chains of command. Similarly it's main target was both obvious and only next door. It was the limited nature of it's aims and proximity to its target that made the IRA so effective.

Wildfire terrorism, as promoted by neo-Nazi groups in the US in the 80's and 90's, is in one way more frightening, because it's targets are incredibly disparate and it's actual aims vague. However, although psychologically powerful, it tends to be less effective in reality because the lack of structure makes the transference of materiel and experience, more haphazard. The present conflict is far closer to this in style and execution.

So, although I completely agree that there has been a tendency to exaggerate the threat for political reasons I don't think that the fact that bombs aren't going of very other week is any indication of the fact that there is no threat at all. The boy who cried wolf got his come-uppance but that doesn't mean you can file wolf next to unicorn.

I never said there was no threat at all. I was trying to point out that given the size of the threat there has been relatively little in the way of actual terror. Apart from a few worldwide events, which could quite easily have also happened via natural catastrophy (WHICH I'M NOT SAYING THEY WERE).

The reason I chose the IRA is simply because, like most others I imagine, they are the only terrorist organisation I've had any kind of experience of.
 
Back
Top