Britain: Police State?

[Analogue Boy]

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.

The difference is that this new system is being set up for an entirely different purpose. In regard to this, and to answer Ted's concern about why privacy is to be valued, CCTV currently films the space in front of and what happens in it in an unbiased fashion. The next generation of the technology is going to concentrate on facial recognition and the computer will analyse what it's seeing in terms what is aberrant or suspicious. It will look at the information given over a period and query who else is in that space relative to you. Small degrees of separation mean we are never far away from a wrong'un and our data will be pored through as a possible acquaintance and possibly a suspect. It is inevitable a file will be generated on you at some point.

 

[Mythopoeika]

That's a good point you make there, Jimv1.
You could strike up a casual conversation with someone in a pub, who turns out to be a villain of some kind. As a result, you could get put in the file of 'known associates'.
This could cause people to be more cautious, and less sociable. Or it could cause the reappearance of speakeasies.

 

[Stormkhan]

Bum! It means no one will want to speak to me in a pub?

Ho hum!

Sits back in the pub, reading his book with a pint nearby

Deary me!

 

[Mythopoeika]

Bum! It means no one will want to speak to me in a pub?

Ho hum!

Sits back in the pub, reading his book with a pint nearby

Deary me!

:lol:

I don't go out to pubs much these days myself... too poor (unemployed), and too much to do that is more entertaining.

 

[Quake42]

I'm not sure whether this belongs here but I found this article fascinating and disturbing. I had no idea that the school curriculum was being hijacked by New Labour concerns in this way.

Joe Iles is 16. He's about to do his GCSEs and hopes to study Latin, German, Further Maths and English or History at A Level (so he's no slouch). After that, he's thinking of studying Classics and Modern Languages at University. But he's not happy with the school curriculum, and was inspired to write for School Gate after the Cambridge Primary Review criticised the restrictions for children at a younger age. He thinks that there's too much politics, that these are pushing out proper learning, and that social issues are being pushed far too hard...

So, over to Joe:

"In recent years, it seems that the school curricula are featuring more and more in public debate. There was considerable press coverage of a study last week which revealed that in primary education, the focus has been steered away from the arts and humanities leaving children “tied to their desks” struggling with the nine times table. The report claims this has “squeezed out” other areas of learning, rendering children’s artistic capacities under-developed and neglected. Furthermore, the report claims not only that the curriculum has been narrowed, but that what remains has become heavily “politicised”.

As a current GCSE student, I can identify with this “politicisation”. It seems to me as if the GCSE curricula, above all for science, no longer focus on understanding the subject. The core biology science curriculum now calls for very little knowledge of the biology that we had studied in the years preceding GCSE, but seems to be a governmental attempt to raise awareness of current social issues. For example, section A of the core biology exam concentrates on contraception, drugs, alcohol, smoking, obesity, anorexia and the MMR vaccines, whilst section B tackles broader issues such as global warming, GM crops, creationism vs Darwinism and alternative energy sources.

Perhaps this is the best solution to the some of the social problems that Britain faces today. Maybe through education, education and education, Labour may finally succeed in reducing teenage pregnancies, child obesity and begin to steer Britain towards a greener way of life.
Perhaps indeed, learning about the advantages and disadvantages of wind and solar power is vastly more useful to the average sixteen year old than a full understanding of the differences between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. In this way, the younger generation may begin to have a much clearer idea of current affairs, enabling us to partake more readily in the critical issues of the day, making us more informed voters and leaders of tomorrow.

An important aspect of the “politicisation” of the curriculum is the use of exams. Not only are the social issues agenda studied in class, but students must take exams on these topics, requiring an in depth analysis of the themes, and also meaning that students’ grades at GCSE depend on their knowledge of the subject in hand, encouraging a much more motivated and engaged learning process.

However, one of the key problems with sitting exams about topics of this nature is that the exam board are required to write mark schemes clearly detailing the answers that they want within a rigid framework. This leaves no room for debate on the part of the student, meaning that instead of producing insightful, perceptive and interesting answers, pupils tend towards putting down what they think the mark scheme is most likely to have as an acceptable response. For example, in a question about embryo screening, the advantage of screening embryos in accordance to the mark scheme was to reduce health care costs for the parents. I found it a little disconcerting, if not positively concerning, to discover that my answer that it would improve the quality of life for the child, did not feature. Is it right to present these issues to pupils in such a way that they are blinkered into one channel of thought? Is it not more productive to allow pupils to debate current affairs in such a way that they are able to access all viewpoints and form their own opinions? Arguably, the government is now more concerned with indoctrination than discussion.

In my view, it must be asked if the science curriculum is really the right place for these social issues to be debated and taught. Indeed, if education is really the process by which someone’s innate intelligence is led out, then perhaps topical issues should be addressed elsewhere. Arguably, in the hours that we spend in full time education, it is more important to develop an understanding of the basics of the world around us; to understand the science behind the issues as opposed to an awareness of the actual issues, and indeed problems, that science can both cause and solve.

Furthermore, those who are employed to teach Biology, Chemistry and Physics may well become frustrated by the deviance of the curriculum from their chosen subject. Thus, their passion for the subject, presumably because of which they chose teaching in the first place, diminishes. Can pupils really find a topic which frustrates their teachers engaging?

For the pupils, this intervention and politicisation can become annoyingly transparent. Having studied global warming in all three sciences, Geography, English, French, German and Spanish, I have found that its initial shock has now ceased to have an impact. The topic has become stale, and my will to change for the better has been weakened.

There is no doubt that there are a number of social issues, concerning young people, which need to be addressed in one way or another. My question is whether GCSE science is really the place for it. Maybe PSHE is a more obvious option, but the problem is that PSHE is not regarded with anywhere near the same level of importance. I think that as young people, we do need to understand the current topics being debated, but it is possibly more beneficial to be invited to participate seriously in balanced discussion, as opposed to having to show we know the effects of smoking in part b) of question nine."

http://timesonline.typepad.com/schoolga ... ase-h.html

 

[lupinwick]

Hmmm, a generation of kids who have not been taught the basics of science. Wonderful.

And back to the big bad RIPA

Controversial surveillance powers employed to fight terrorism and combat crime have been misused by civil servants in undercover "spying" operations that breach official guidelines, the Guardian has learned.

Documents obtained under Freedom of Information show some government departments and agencies have used these powers incorrectly or without proper controls. They also show the official government watchdog set up to monitor the use of such clandestine techniques criticised the departments for their behaviour.

The watchdog twice threatened to inform Gordon Brown about the serious abuses of powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA).

The watchdog highlighted how:

• Officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) did not have proper authorisation when they went undercover posing as anglers to glean information about imported fish;

• A manager responsible for authorising surveillance at the NHS anti-fraud agency routinely gave officials "carte blanche" in surveillance operations;

• Tracking devices were attached to vehicles in a bid to monitor the disposal of waste, after the Environment Agency received apparently incorrect advice from the Home Office

• Potential prosecutions were jeopardised because those conducting the surveillance operations were not properly trained and had not followed procedures

• A large array of public bodies are also using surveillance powers, including the Charity Commission, Royal Pharmaceutical Society and the BBC.

The disclosures come amid mounting criticism of the expansion of state powers to spy on citizens.

The RIPA was introduced in 2000 to regulate surveillance carried out by public bodies to prevent crime, terrorism and protect public safety. Local councils have been accused of going too far by "snooping" on people suspected of dog fouling, fly-tipping or fraudulently applying for a school place.

The Home Office minister Vernon Coaker has said some surveillance has been "inappropriate", while Sir Simon Milton, chairman of the Local Government Association, wrote to every council in England last year urging them to cease using the powers for "trivial" matters.

Source

Of course people will use it if its available.

 

[sonofajoiner]

Speaking of RIPA, I was just reading an opinion piece by Rory Bremner in The Indy about erosion of civil liberties etc etc and spotted the following:

Then there's the grim RIPA – the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. Did you know that postal services may be forced to open, copy and reseal any postal item, with specific obligations to intercept with as little impact as possible, to ensure individuals remains unaware of the intrusion?

Eh? May be? Is this already part of the Act or forthcoming? Or is this somehow related to the postponed spying on ur internetz stuff being bandied around last year? Will/does this only apply to suspected terrorist post? Or is this some sort of new satire I'm just not getting?

 

[sonofajoiner]

He thinks that there's too much politics, that these are pushing out proper learning, and that social issues are being pushed far too hard...

Couldn't the sort of things this lad mentions simply be down to a misguided attempt on the part of the govt at making certain subjects more 'relevant' and therefore supposedly more attractive to young people, rather than being an insiduous propaganda campaign?

Vaguely irrelevant anecdote follows:
When I did gcse biology some mumble mumble years ago (but most assuredly under a conservative govt) I recall that we spent an inordinate amount of time debating such hot topics as animal rights, the destruction of the rainforests and yes even alternative fuel sources. And chemistry was staring at beakers of acid (and not even the good kind) and physics was attaching crocodile clips to the teachers clothing while she wasn't looking. The point being that gcse science has seemingly always been piss-poor with the staff, at least at my school, instructing A-Level science students to forget all they'd previously learned because it was by and large rubbish.

 

[rynner2]

Catch 'em young...

CCTV installed to monitor classrooms
CCTV cameras and microphones are being installed in schools to monitor children's behaviour and teachers' performance in what union leaders described as 'Big Brother' tactics.

Last Updated: 10:54PM GMT 04 Mar 2009

Four schools in Salford, Greater Manchester, have installed cameras and microphones in special training classrooms.

The 360-degree cameras are so powerful that observers can see what children are writing.

Although taking part in the monitoring sessions is voluntary, headteachers say they expect the majority of their staff to participate.

Union officials fear reluctant teachers will be compelled to take part at the trial in Harrop Fold School, Albion High School, St George's RC High School, and the Oasis Academy.

They said the filmed lessons could be used to get around existing agreements on how often senior teachers can sit in to monitor other staff during lessons.

Under national guidelines, teachers can be monitored only three hours a year following complaints that excessive monitoring was putting them off.

Dr Mary Bousted, head of the ATL teaching union, said: "It does seem a bit Big Brother-ish. Although schools say that the process is voluntary, it would be quite difficult to stand out and say `no' if other people are agreeing to it."

Chris Keates, general secretary of the NASUWT union, said: "We do not support the use of cameras in this way and see no professional security or educational benefits to such systems."

Antony Edkins, the 'superhead' recruited to turn around Harrop Fold four years ago, insisted he wouldn't be spying on teachers and that monitoring was `constructive' rather than `judgemental'.

He said: "This is not Big Brother in any sense. We are using the technology as a coaching tool. It allows teachers to get the benefit of an extra pair of eyes.

"Having someone in the class can put off teachers. But allowing a coach to remotely watch everything that is going on and give feedback has been really useful.

"If a particular part of the lesson isn't working or if the children are not responding, they can suggest asking more open questions or allowing the pupils more time to respond.

"I have used it, both as a coach and as a teacher, and found the feedback was useful. A number of staff have volunteered to take part in the coaching and the majority will use it on an on-going basis but we are certainly not forcing it. There is no point in people doing it who don't feel happy with it."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/ed ... rooms.html

Some people will never be happy until everyone of us is under CCTV surveillance 24/7...

 

[river_styx]

Doctors have condemned a Big Brother scheme to give the public sector and private companies much wider access to personal medical records.

Eight organisations, including the British Medical Association and the medical royal colleges, have protested against it. They have written a letter to oppose a proposed law that would make it easier for the Government to share data.

They are demanding that medical records be exempt from provisions in Jack Straw's Coroners and Justice Bill. The signatories have asked for a meeting with the Justice Secretary and expressed grave concerns about a clause of the Bill.

This clause appears to grant the Government unprecedented powers to access confidential medical records - and even share them with third parties. Ministers would simply be able to sign an order, allowing their department to share data.

The BMA argues much of the at-risk data could be used by medical researchers, potentially in the pay of drugs companies. In their letter, the protesting bodies said that the new powers would undermine the presumption of confidentiality, corrode trust in the doctor-patient relationship and could have a disastrous impact on both the health of individuals and the public.

It went on to state that the Bill could result in patients withholding information or even avoiding the healthcare system altogether.

So it would appear our medical records are no longer safe from the all seeing eye of Labour.

Apologies if this is old news. I've only just come across it and the website I read it on has credited the original story to The Mail *spits*.

 

[Mythopoeika]

Face recognition tech being rolled out in some schools:

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_home/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=396794

How soon before it reaches a wider usage?

 

[Analogue Boy]

Police are targeting thousands of political campaigners in surveillance operations and storing their details on a database for at least seven years, an investigation by the Guardian can reveal.

Photographs, names and video ­footage of people attending protests are ­routinely obtained by surveillance units and stored on an "intelligence system". The ­Metropolitan police, which has ­pioneered surveillance at demonstrations and advises other forces on the tactic, stores details of protesters on Crimint, the general database used daily by all police staff to catalogue criminal intelligence. It lists campaigners by name, allowing police to search which demonstrations or political meetings individuals have attended.

Not only that. There's footage from a Police video which concentrates on the press covering the protest with comments from the Officers present. It's worrying stuff.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/0 ... kingsnorth

 

[Analogue Boy]

Update to the above story...

We were wrong to film journalists covering protest, say Kent police
• Climate camp surveillance mistaken, force accepts
• Met asked to clarify its evidence in separate case


Kent police accepted last night they should not have placed journalists under surveillance after a Guardian investigation revealed members of the press were monitored and followed at last year's climate camp demonstration.

Secret footage shot by two police surveillance officers during the protest, obtained by the Guardian and broadcast online over the weekend, confirmed officers have been monitoring journalists at protests. Senior officers had previously denied journalists had become the target of surveillance units.

The footage showed that while officers had been asked to monitor protesters against the Kingsnorth coal-fired power station, they showed particular interest in journalists.

An ITV news crew, a Sky News cameraman and several photographers were among members of the press placed under surveillance as they left the camp in August. Later in the day journalists were followed by another surveillance unit to a McDonald's restaurant where police filmed them.

Allyn Thomas, Kent's assistant chief constable who oversaw the operation, said the force "fully accept the right to protest as part of our democracy", but the force had received information that protesters intended to shut down the power station.

"As part of our operation overt filming of protesters was carried out as a means of identifying anyone who subsequently attempted to break into the power station. The situation on the ground was complex with more than 1,000 protesters, together with journalists and camera crews, in a confined area. We accept that police should not have filmed legitimate journalists or camera crews, however it was a difficult task in these circumstances to clearly identify them." All the journalists followed by the surveillance unit were carrying camera equipment and had produced press cards, the official identification of bona fide journalists.

But Thomas said there was "an issue" with officers who had failed to understand press cards, which are endorsed by national police bodies as the official identification for news gatherers.

"We acted on this and have incorporated training about this issue in our guidance for future operations," he said.


.....

Full article here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/ma ... rveillance

 

[rynner2]

Trainspotters to be banned from stations after 170 years because of 'security risk'
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 11:27 AM on 16th March 2009

Trainspotters could be banned from King’s Cross and other major stations for security reasons, it was claimed today.
Union leaders say National Express will bar spotters from stations on the East Coast main line because they are a nuisance and pose a "security risk".
There are suggestions of other operators following suit.

The ban, which union leaders claim “betrays Britain’s 170-year long railway heritage”, covers King’s Cross and York, which is the spiritual home of the industry and next door to the National Rail Museum.
National Express is instigating the ban as it installs automatic ticket gates at main stations along the line, say union leaders, who accused the operator of “mindless vandalism”.
Gerry Doherty, general secretary of the TSSA, the industry’s second largest union, said one of his officials had been told by a manager that trainspotters posed a “security risk”.

He said: “Do they really think that a 10-year-old boy with a pencil and notebook is in possession of a dangerous weapon? You do wonder sometimes what planet these people are on.”
Mr Doherty added: “The barbarians have finally taken over the industry. Only people with no sense of history would commit such an act of mindless vandalism. Young trainspotters have been with us since Victorian times. Now National Express is saying they should be banned as they are a nuisance.
“The company has told us that train spotters will be banned at all its main line stations which will be installed with gated barriers.”
Stations covered by the ban also include Stevenage, Peterborough, Newark, Leeds, Durham, Doncaster, Wakefield and Newcastle.

The TSSA could challenge the ban on legal grounds and is contacting the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police.
Mr Doherty said: “As far as we are aware, the Chief Constable’s national guidelines guaranteed trainspotters access to all stations under the Act when the railways were privatised under John Major’s government.
“We shall be asking the Chief Constable to make sure that these guidelines still apply to private operators like National Express.”
He said he doubted whether National Express chief executive Richard Bowker “even knows the guidelines exist”.

One trainspotter, who would only give his name as Roger, said: “National Express has taken leave of its senses.
“Trainspotters may be seen as a bit odd but we are friends of the railways. We don’t smash it up, steal cables or blow ourselves to bits — so why are they picking on us?”

A spokeswoman for National Express said: “It is absolutely not true that we are banning trainspotters. But we are putting (automatic) gates on our stations which is a franchise commitment and supported by Passenger Focus (the national rail watchdog).
“However, we do have a system of station passes whereby anyone who wants to use the platform to wave goodbye can do so.”

A TSSA spokesman said: “At our meeting in York with National Express management we were categorically told that trainspotting is being banned without exception.
“There was no mention of station passes which appear to us only to allow people on the platforms for a very short space of time.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -risk.html

 

[Analogue Boy]

Gerry Doherty, general secretary of the TSSA, the industry’s second largest union, said one of his officials had been told by a manager that trainspotters posed a “security risk”.

Like I've been saying from the outset, we're all suspects now.
Off to get a V mask.

 

[OneWingedBird]

i was in the bath tonight listening to classic fm, and twice heard an 'infomercial' asking the public to dob in anything suspicious to anti-terrorist officers.

the example of suspicious they used was someone looking at the positioning of cctv cameras.

better hope no-one picks that for their school project any time soon

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Call of the panic - you can still get drunk in an Islington boozer without being spied upon. You'll be able to discuss diversity with your white middle-class mates whilst a Pole pulls your pint for 6 quid an hour and there's nothing the authorities can do about it:


FEARS over the erosion of civil liberties have forced Islington Police into a rethink over their insistence that all pubs install CCTV cameras.

Following a challenge by a Barnsbury pub landlord, senior officers were told by the Information Commissioner Richard Thomas to review the policy.

Composer Michael Nyman, who lives close to The Drapers Arms, the Barnsbury pub at the centre of the row, has hailed plans for a review of the rules as a small victory against the erosion of our liberties.

Police chiefs admitted last night (Thursday) they were taking advice from Met lawyers over their insistence that CCTV should be a requirement for all pubs applying for licences from Islington Council.

Mr Nyman spoke out following the revelation that businessman Nick Gibson and partner Ben Maschler son of restaurant critic Fay Maschler had won their application for a licence to reopen The Drapers Arms in Barnsbury Street.

The pubs licence application prompted a huge row after police told a horrified Mr Gibson they would not object to his bid as long as he installed CCTV and shared images of his customers with police.

But, at a licensing hearing on Wednesday, it emerged that officers had withdrawn their demand.

Mr Nyman, who supported Mr Gibsons stance in an interview with the Tribune two weeks ago, welcomed the police climbdown.

He said: Now we will be able to avoid police and government snooping as we go about our innocent business of eating, drinking and being. This is a small victory against the erosion of our liberties.

Mr Gibson added: The police withdrew the CCTV condition. We dont want to make a big thing of it. We like the fact that our customers can have a drink without being filmed.

A spokeswoman for Islington Police said the borough chiefs decided to reconsider the policy after the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) intervened in the row.

She said: Islington Police will consider the need for CCTV to be installed in licensed premises on a case-by-case basis and will make such a recommendation to the local authority licensing panel only when there is justification to do so. We are seeking in-house legal advice regarding our previous local position.

The business partners are investing 400,000 in The Drapers Arms, and have drafted in food and wine experts, including Fay Maschler, to advise on their menu.

Mr Maschler said: My mother is there as a mentor. I grew up around restaurants and thats rubbed off on me and I love the food industry.

Were very much looking forward to getting the pub open now and creating a pub the locals are going to be happy with and proud to have in their neighbourhood. We hope to create a wine list thats distinctive and interesting and that you wont find replicated across London.

Councillors at Wednesdays licensing hearing agreed the ground floor of the pub can stay open until 11pm. The upstairs restaurant will open until midnight every day, except Sunday when it will close at 11pm.

Mr Gibson and Mr Maschler dropped plans to play recorded music.

Labour ward councillor James Murray, speaking on behalf of 14 residents, told the hearing: Its a very dense residential area. Id be concerned if The Drapers Arms was known as being open later and people would go round when the other pubs shut.

The spirit of Barnsbury should be that if you want a late night go somewhere like Angel where its less of a residential area.

The pub is expected to open in the first week of May.

A spokeswoman for the ICO said: Following our intervention, The Drapers Arms in Islington is no longer required to install CCTV.

We will now be speaking with the Metropolitan Police about the blanket requirement for licensed premises in certain boroughs to install CCTV surveillance.

The use of CCTV must be reasonable and proportionate if we are to maintain public trust and confidence in its deployment. Installing surveillance in a particular pub to combat specific problems of rowdiness and bad behaviour may be lawful, but hardwiring in blanket measures across entire areas and including pubs where there has been no history of criminal activity is likely to breach data protection requirements.

http://www.thecnj.co.uk/islington/2009/ ... 09_04.html

 

[Mythopoeika]

i was in the bath tonight listening to classic fm, and twice heard an 'infomercial' asking the public to dob in anything suspicious to anti-terrorist officers.

the example of suspicious they used was someone looking at the positioning of cctv cameras.

better hope no-one picks that for their school project any time soon

Well now, since you mention it, there was a news feature yesterday about a police force somewhere in Britain that is doing a project with some kids. They've even given the kids little police uniforms, and are getting them to spy on their parents.
That sounds a LOT like 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' and Hitler Youth, doesn't it?

 

[Dingo667]

i was in the bath tonight listening to classic fm, and twice heard an 'infomercial' asking the public to dob in anything suspicious to anti-terrorist officers.

the example of suspicious they used was someone looking at the positioning of cctv cameras.

better hope no-one picks that for their school project any time soon

Well now, since you mention it, there was a news feature yesterday about a police force somewhere in Britain that is doing a project with some kids. They've even given the kids little police uniforms, and are getting them to spy on their parents.
That sounds a LOT like 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' and Hitler Youth, doesn't it?

That sounds like East-Germany to me...no hold on, it is actually worse!
I grew up in W-Germany, near the border and actually FEARED the way they lived, later I had a friend from the East that confirmed all my fears but compared to Britain today [and I am not joking here] it wasn't actually that bad. I can't believe I just said that.
The Stasi [Staats Sicherheits Polizei = Safety Police] were there to "protect" people from the evil West. Using that old chestnut, they encouraged spying on each other etc, exactly what is happening now in Britain.
The only difference is that we are still allowed to go when we want wherever we want without hassle...

...or are we?

 

[Quake42]

Well now, since you mention it, there was a news feature yesterday about a police force somewhere in Britain that is doing a project with some kids. They've even given the kids little police uniforms, and are getting them to spy on their parents.

More info?

 

[Mythopoeika]

Sorry, I don't have any more info on that.
It was one of the last articles on ITV early evening news (presumably the 'light-hearted' bit they usually throw in at the end).
I wasn't really paying that much attention, so I didn't catch which police force it was.
I tried doing a web search, but nothing came up.

Essentially, police in a particular town are doing a schools initiative, and they have given some uniforms to some kids (looked like 8 or 9 years old).
The kids have to note down things they see - such as their own Mum's parking infringements, etc.

Perhaps it's a light-hearted community initiative just on a local scale, but we need to be careful that it doesn't become a more sinister institution...

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Sorry, I don't have any more info on that.
It was one of the last articles on ITV early evening news (presumably the 'light-hearted' bit they usually throw in at the end).
I wasn't really paying that much attention, so I didn't catch which police force it was.
I tried doing a web search, but nothing came up.

Essentially, police in a particular town are doing a schools initiative, and they have given some uniforms to some kids (looked like 8 or 9 years old).
The kids have to note down things they see - such as their own Mum's parking infringements, etc.

Perhaps it's a light-hearted community initiative just on a local scale, but we need to be careful that it doesn't become a more sinister institution...

I might be able to dig something up on it. Which night was it on? Was this the national news and not a local broadcast?

 

[rynner2]

I did see the story - so it was probably on the Beeb or a UK press news site. (Tried a search, nada.) But I think this covers it:

Perhaps it's a light-hearted community initiative just on a local scale...

 

[Quake42]

Perhaps it's a light-hearted community initiative just on a local scale, but we need to be careful that it doesn't become a more sinister institution...

On the face of it, it sounds hugely sinister! A quick Google has brought up very little apart from militant global warming sceptic sites in the US attacking Al Gore. Would be very interested if anything more emerges on this. Disturbing.

 

[lupinwick]

At least there is some good news from Mark Thomas (perhaps)....

Until Tuesday I was one of 800,000 innocent people in the UK who had their DNA on the police database. Most of us had a swab sample taken on arrest and our identifiable cell clusters have languished on police files even if charges were dropped or we were found not guilty in court.

In 2003 I was arrested at a protest against the arms dealer BAE Systems and charged with causing £80 worth of damage to a bus. Leaving aside the irony that if any BAE Systems products only caused £80 of damage the purchasers would sue for a refund, seven months later I found myself on trial. After two days I was acquitted on the legal technicality of being innocent. More important, the court found there was no evidence for a crime having been committed in the first place. The experience left me frustrated, with only a 20-minute comedy routine to take away the pain of injustice.

Now before folk howl that I am a champagne anarchist happy to harp on about civil liberties while murderers run free, let me explain my objections. I have no problem with those found guilty of a serious criminal offence being on the database, especially those in prison - it seems small beer that the state holds a tiny amount of their DNA on file when the primary clump of their genes is being held at Her Majesty's pleasure. Likewise those who have served their time: being on the database is the price you pay for having, as the Sweeney would say, "previous". Neither do I object to the police taking my DNA in the first place - but once a person is proven innocent what right and reason do the police have to retain the DNA profile?

In December 2008 all this changed when the European court of human rights ruled that by retaining the DNA of the innocent, the UK government was in breach of Article 8 of the European convention, the right to family and private life. A spirit of optimism filled campaigners as Jacqui Smith had three months to comply with the ruling. However, the one thing we have learnt about Labour home secretaries and civil liberties is that they don't much like liberty. Or civility. Three months passed and nothing changed. So with my lawyer I sent a letter before claim to the Met commissioner, essentially threatening to issue judicial review proceedings unless my DNA was removed.

We based the claim on a number of points. One was the European ruling, another was the fact that police commissioners have the discretion to remove DNA samples in "exceptional circumstances". Not only was there no evidence of the crime I was charged with but my DNA had been hanging around for over five years with no convictions attaching themselves to it. These seemed "exceptional circumstances".

On Tuesday the police replied with one line: "I can confirm that a decision has been made to delete your client's fingerprints and DNA sample and DNA profile." No explanation why.

Victory celebrations, though, might be premature. As the law remains unchanged it leaves the onus on individuals to write to the police seeking removal. Helen Wallace, from the NGO GeneWatch, says she has received "copies of letters from lots of individuals who have not been convicted of any offence who are being refused removal from the database". As Jacqui Smith has dodged the issue it is up to us. There are 799,999 of you out there, mostly pissed off, some eligible for legal aid, and everyone with the motivation to do their bit in rolling back the data state. Go on, write in.

Source

Although you have to take their word for it...

 

[sonofajoiner]

Whilst we're on a good news tip (sorta), it looks as though Bailiffs aren't going to be legally allowed to kick our front doors down or work on our kidneys in the pursuit of credit card debt. Until 2012.

Ministry of Justice (National)

Tighter regulations for bailiffs announced

Plans for a new code regulating the activities of bailiffs were announced by Justice Minister Bridget Prentice today.

To provide clarity for debtors and certainty for creditors, the following measures will be implemented in advance of full independent regulation:

* an on-line certificated bailiff register allowing debtors to check bailiffs' certification status;

* an extension to the certification process to ensure that all bailiffs provide a Criminal Records Bureau check with their application;

* minimum training requirements and competences for inclusion in the certification process.

These measures, which will commence later in the year, will contribute to the development of the more permanent solution of independent regulation in 2012.

However, following a comprehensive reassessment of the provisions in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 ordered by the Secretary of State for Justice, the Government will not be extending bailiffs' powers of entry and the use of force by enforcement agents, and will not be commencing Charging Order reforms.

Justice Minister Bridget Prentice said:

"Last year Jack Straw asked me to look again at enforcement provisions contained in the TCE Act, to assess whether they remained appropriate. "As a result the Government is today introducing plans for a number of measures and which will prepare the ground for long term reform of the enforcement industry and a new code governing the activities of bailiffs.

"This will help debtors, creditors, bailiffs and the police understand what their rights and responsibilities are when debts are enforced. However, following the reassessment the Government will not now be commencing provisions on Charging Orders or taking any action that would extend bailiffs powers of entry."

Notes to Editors

1. The Tribunals Courts and Enforcement (TCE) Act received Royal Assent in 2007.

2. A written ministerial statement was placed in the House on 17 March 2009

3. Bailiff reforms based on provisions in the TCE Act will do away with complex and archaic legislation to ensure that bailiffs carry out their work in a transparent, fair and honest way, and offer certainty for creditors and clarity for debtors. In particular, subject to consultation, regulations under the Act will clarify:

* When and how a bailiff can enter somebody's premises.

* What goods they can and cannot seize and sell.

* What fees they can charge.

The regulations are designed to help debtors, creditors, bailiffs and the police understand their rights and responsibilities in enforcement.

4. For more information, please contact Ministry of Justice Press Office on 020 33 34 35 36.

ENDS

News Release
http://www.justice.gov.uk

Client ref 035/09

COI ref 171823P

LINK

BBC ARTICLE

 

[Analogue Boy]

Google street view. Here's what I don't get - if the police have been restricting the photography of railway stations and areas of popular public interest in the name of anti-terrorism, how come this facility is allowed to go public?
Surely the functionality of an engine that potentially gives detailed pictorial reference of access points to a site and a number of potential escape routes is more harmful than the snapping of a sightseer or trainspotter?

Anyway....it appears that those who brought wider surveillance upon the general public do not like the idea of a camera being turned on them.

You're not Googling us: The Blairs, House of Commons and Google boss won't have THEIR privacy invaded on Street View

Google was at the centre of new controversy last night after pictures of Tony Blair’s London home were mysteriously removed from its Street View web service.
Images of the House of Commons, the entrance to Downing Street and several Government departments were also blacked out.
And it also emerged that Google’s own boss in the UK does not have his London house on Street View.
Anyone typing Mr Blair’s address into the website, which allows people to see 360-degree pictures of streets, including close-ups of houses and buildings, is met with the message: ‘This image is no longer available.’
While the front of Mr Blair’s house has been blacked out, it is still visible from a slightly different angle.
Ironically, when the Blairs bought their Connaught Square townhouse they installed closed-circuit TV cameras around the building to address their ‘security needs’ – provoking anger from neighbours. Critics also pointed out that while in office Mr Blair presided over a ‘surveillance society’..

...Scotland Yard was unable to shed any light on the issue, saying it did not discuss security matters.
:shock:

Mr Woodside won't have his privacy invaded online - but the rest of us aren't so lucky
Last night, in the absence of any explanation for the removal of the pictures, campaigners mocked the Government’s apparent double standards.

Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti said: ‘It is delicious irony, even a modern morality tale, when those who have perpetrated so much snooping protest personal privacy for themselves.
‘So much for “nothing to hide, nothing to fear!” Perhaps we all have something to fear after all.’

Guy Herbert of campaign group NO2ID said: ‘It is astonishing that a Government which gave council tax valuation officials the power to enter your home and take photos of it from the inside should worry about what ordinary people can see of their properties from the outside.’
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: ‘Perhaps the Government will now understand why there is so much concern about the extent of all their plans to monitor the lives of the people they represent.’

Full article here...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -View.html

 

[Analogue Boy]

Status Park 4. (I couldn't have thought up a more Orwellian name) -the facility that monitors your holiday trip. Unfortunately the Daily Maul rantingly calls it Stasi HQ UK. AAAAnyway....

This anonymous office building on a business park near Heathrow Airport is where the Government has begun monitoring millions of British holidaymakers using its controversial new 'terrorist detector' database.
The top-secret computer system - tied into the airlines' ticketing network - makes judgments about travel habits and passengers' friends and family to decide if they are a security risk.
Like something from a science-fiction film, the Home Office has designed it to spot a 'criminal' or terrorist before they have done anything wrong.

The building's address is, some might say sinisterly, called Status Park 4.
But the intrusiveness of the system at the heart of Government's so-called 'e-Borders' scheme has provoked such fury among civil liberties campaigners that some consider it akin to a modern-day Stasi headquarters.
All the information passengers give to travel agents, including home addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, passport details and the names of family members, is shared with an unknown number of Government agencies for 'analysis' and stored for up to ten years.
But even as the 'profiling' system goes live, its reliability is being called into question.
An internal Home Office document obtained by The Mail on Sunday reveals that during testing one 'potential suspect' turned out to be an airline passenger with a spinal injury flying into Britain with his nurse.
'Suspect' requests likely to cause innocent holidaymakers to get 'red flags' as potential terrorists include ordering a vegetarian meal, asking for an over-wing seat and travelling with a foreign-born husband or wife.
The system will also 'red flag' passengers buying a one-way ticket and making a last-minute reservation and those with a history of booking tickets and not showing up for the flights.
A previous history of travel to the Middle East, Pakistan, Afghanistan or Iran will also trigger an alarm, as will those with a record of sponsoring an immigrant from any of these countries.

One of my concerns on the use of surveillance technology was the planned roll-out of tech that records our actions, not merely our physical appearance. Anything aberrant or not within the parameters of 'the norm' would be flagged and filed for cross reference.

Well...

At the heart of the system is a highly classified computer algorithm designed to pick out people to be searched, questioned by security staff or barred from flying.
An internal Home Office Border and Immigration Agency document explains how Britain's new system will work.
Written by Tim Rymer, head of the Joint Border Operations Centre, the forerunner to the new NBTC, it explains how it will use 'Passenger Name Record' (PNR) information given when travellers buy a ticket....

...'Profiles are run to identify behaviour, not to identify individuals, and are based on evidence and intelligence.' Mr Rymer revealed that the information secured from the airlines for e-Borders would then also be available to other unnamed Government departments and held for up to ten years.

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

 

[Quake42]

'Suspect' requests likely to cause innocent holidaymakers to get 'red flags' as potential terrorists include ordering a vegetarian meal

Eh? Are potential terrorists veggies then?

 

[rynner2]

Eh? Are potential terrorists veggies then?

I'm taking no chances - I'm just off out for a roast beef dinner!