Britain: Police State?

[Analogue Boy]

I'm sure people will find a way to stop these trackers from working. Lead boxes, anybody?

I'm sure that tampering with them will be illegal. Or probably, like failing to report a faulty ID Card, liable to a £1000 fine.

 

[river_styx]

Anyone failing to produce the proper identity documents will be sent via train to one of the many processing 'camps' where their security situation will be assessed.

Surely this will require the nationalisation of the rail network? It ain't going to work on the existing private network....

The new Minister of Transportation, Ben Mussolini, is to take charge of the rail networks to ensure that the trains run on time.

 

[Dandelo_]

I am strongly against the introduction of compulsory ID cards, as I not only believe that they're a waste of money, but a complete intrusion of privacy and one step closer to an Orwellian society.

So I am pleased that Jacqui Smith's private life has been exposed with the slip up of using tax payers money for a couple of soft porn movies. Not to mention her other tax payers bought home!

Yeah, its only a couple of soft porn movies, but the embarrassment and invasion of her privacy makes me feel better. See how she likes it! Say NO to ID!

 

[river_styx]

The thing that really pisses me off about all this is that it had to come from an inside source or a leak.

Ministers' expenses should be public record and should be available for scrutiny at all times. Unless they're using them for things they shouldn't, which obviously they are, then they have nothing to worry about.

I'm sick to the back teeth of the tired excuses of public safety and security. It truly is a case of some are more equal than others.

 

[Quake42]

Interesting on a number of points. It seems to be going after radical Islam, which in itself could be seen as a form of discrimination. How about other forms of radicalisation

In fairness, the only "radicals" blowing up Tube trains and flying planes into buildings at the moment are of the Islamic type. So it seems reasonable that the police and security services should focus their attention in this area.

Ministers' expenses should be public record and should be available for scrutiny at all times. Unless they're using them for things they shouldn't, which obviously they are, then they have nothing to worry about.

The innocent have nothing to fear eh?

You can't have it both ways. MPs should have the same expectation of privacy as anyone else and I don't accept that every document related to their finances should be a matter of public record. What is clearly needed, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, is a modernisation of the expenses system.

 

[lupinwick]

Most people would suggest that given that MPs are public servants their expenditure in the performance of their jobs should also be a matter of public record. As should any perks resulting from their jobs. A shake-up of expenses is required but it also needs to ensure that as far as the public is concerned there is a high degree of transparency and fairness.

Sorry, the "radicals" could be of any stripe. At the moment it applies to Muslims but the the method could just as easily brought to bear on any other faith, or culture or indeed any other form of radical thought (radical greens, far left, far right etc. etc. or indeed anybody who the government happens to disagree with). Then you're in a situation where kids are fed the government line and monitored throughout their education.

Personally I suspect that that kind of policy and thinking is as likely to increase the rate of radicalisation.

 

[river_styx]

.

Ministers' expenses should be public record and should be available for scrutiny at all times. Unless they're using them for things they shouldn't, which obviously they are, then they have nothing to worry about.

The innocent have nothing to fear eh?

You can't have it both ways. MPs should have the same expectation of privacy as anyone else and I don't accept that every document related to their finances should be a matter of public record. What is clearly needed, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, is a modernisation of the expenses system.

Never actually said every document relating to their finances now did I. There is a clear difference between expenses and salary.

Expenses should only ever be work related. I had an expense account during my last job and it only ever included anything required during an overnight stay on business. Food, drink, moderately priced hotels, etc..

I'm not for one minute suggesting we should know what they're doing with their own private income. What I am saying is that anything paid for by the state should be on record and available to anybody as and when they wish to view it.

 

[ramonmercado]

On the expenses maybe there should be a set rate for hotels & subsistence. (Based on going rates for 3 star hoels in area, just cut by 25% due to crisis.) Thats the way it works in the Irish Public service. If you MUST use a more expensive hotel then the vouched expenses are paid.

Politicians still have unvouched milage expenses for travel regardless of whether they use a car but public servants only get this if they use a car & have to justify the use.

Expenses are necessary, but there is a need for reform re politicians milage allowances.

Relatives of politicians should be off limits unless they are employed by the politician and paid for from the public purse.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

The last Tory Government fell, partially, because they were perceived as up to their eyebrows in sleaze and corruption. One of the reasons they brought in a new expenses system, was to try and discourage the lobbying, free travel, hotel stays, expensive holidays, special events, presents, bribery and baksheesh culture that had grown flagrant under Thatcher and Major.

If the economy hadn't collapsed, the generous expenses system might not have been quite so obvious. Nonetheless, treating yourself, or your family, to an extra house, at the Public's expense is more than just ordinary brass-neckery.

But, charging dirty films, from your home address, on the expenses, that's just plain stupid.

 

[Analogue Boy]

You can't have it both ways. MPs should have the same expectation of privacy as anyone else and I don't accept that every document related to their finances should be a matter of public record. What is clearly needed, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, is a modernisation of the expenses system.

It's not the porn. It's not the 'family home'. It's not even the 88p plug for the claimed kitchen sink. It's the fact that at her insistence, this government have preached a case for ever-closer scrutiny of our personal lives, movements, phone conversations, emails and internet usage. Why? To combat terrorism and FRAUD.

In between the belly-laughs, what gets me is that Smith failed to grasp that under the same principle, her finances as a public official accountable to the electorate would at some point also come under scrutiny. And maybe her husband's viewing habits would be monitored and stored for 5 years. Either she is monumentally stupid or is blinded by the traditional ailment that dogs a number of MPs at the fag end of the party, a mixture of arrogance and greed. Either way, it adds up to the fact that there’s little in the way of integrity and also little understanding of the implications of a far-reaching database even by those seeking to implement it.

It’s not Orwell. It’s not even Kafka. It’s pure Whitehall farce. Who would have thought Big Brother would have ended up looking like Brian Rix?

I have long thought the solution for MP's wages and expenses was to give them the basic salary of the average working man. Seeing as they're supposed to be ethically inspired and driven politically to make our lives better, as the lot of the average working man improves, so would theirs.

 

[Mythopoeika]

I have long thought the solution for MP's wages and expenses was to give them the basic salary of the average working man. Seeing as they're supposed to be ethically inspired and driven politically to make our lives better, as the lot of the average working man improves, so would theirs.

Hell yeah! Let them try to survive on the same crap salaries as the rest of us.

 

[sonofajoiner]

Where the hell did this spring from? Cause I'm pretty fupping sure this nasty piece of illiberal bs was being put on the back burner.

Personal web data to be stored for a year

New law forces service providers to record all your calls and emails from Monday

By Robert Verkaik, Law editor
Saturday, 4 April 2009

The mobile calls, emails and website visits of every person in Britain will be stored for a year under sweeping new powers which come into force on Monday. Privacy campaigners warned last night that the information would be used by the Government to create a giant "Big Brother" super-database containing a map of everyone's private life.

The new powers will, for the first time, place a legal duty on internet companies to store private information, including email traffic and website browsing histories.

Although the new retention powers will not permit the storage of the content of emails or phone calls it will show details such as IP addresses, date, time and user telephone numbers. Under the terms of the EU directive, the Home Office has written to leading internet service providers and phone companies offering to compensate them for the costs incurred in retaining the data for a year.

A spokesman for the Internet Service Providers Association confirmed that the leading ISPs had received written orders from the Home Office setting out their obligations under the new rules.

Phil Booth of the civil rights campaign group, NOID, said: "Inch by inch, the Government's plans to map and monitor everyone's communications are creeping into place. Today it's retention of data, soon it'll be a giant database to suck it all up. And unless we speak out and stop this, what used to be private – details of your relationships and personal interests – will end up in the ever-widening control of the stalker state."

Last week the The Independent reported that millions of Britons who use social networking sites such as Facebook could soon have their every move monitored by the Government and saved on a "Big Brother" database.

Then ministers faced a civil liberties outcry over the plans, with accusations of excessive snooping on the private lives of law-abiding citizens. Others fear the risk of security breaches. "Quite clearly, this new legislation opens up a whole can of worms for the ISPs when it comes to potential security implications," said Neil Cook, a security expert with the internet data protection firm Cloudmark.

The Government has twice postponed publication of a new data communications Bill in which ministers will set out their plans for a centrally controlled database. A Home Office spokesman said: "If we do not make changes now to maintain existing capabilities, the law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies will no longer be able to use this data in the future."

He added: "It is the Government's priority to protect public safety and national security. That is why we are completing the implementation of this directive, which will bring the UK in line with our European counterparts. Communications data plays a vital part in a wide range of criminal investigations. Without communications data, resolving crimes such as the Rhys Jones murder would be very difficult if not impossible."

LINK

 

[rynner2]

Where the hell did this spring from? Cause I'm pretty fupping sure this nasty piece of illiberal bs was being put on the back burner.

Personal web data to be stored for a year

New law forces service providers to record all your calls and emails from Monday

Every cloud has a silver lining:

Home Office website links to porn 8)

The Home Office has removed a link on its website which pointed to a Japanese sexual services site. :shock:

The Home Office has removed a link from its website after being alerted by the BBC that it linked to what appeared to be a Japanese pornography site.

The link was on a page providing information about the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism.

A link - that was supposed to go to a body called the Technical Advisory Board - actually went to a porn site.

The Home Office said that the site it was linking to had become defunct and been bought by a different company.

A Home Office spokeswoman said there would be an investigation into the matter.

The link was spotted by Mike Riley, who was trying to find out about new regulations that come in today, which oblige internet service providers to store details of user e-mails and internet phone calls.

He contacted the BBC after visiting the Home Office website and noticing the link to the Japanese site.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7986483.stm

 

[Analogue Boy]

Every cloud has a silver lining:

Home Office website links to porn 8)

The Home Office has removed a link on its website which pointed to a Japanese sexual services site. :shock:

Don't worry! Your data is perfectly safe. The Government knows all about computers and their internets.

 

[rynner2]

Police to keep DNA samples of innocent people until they reach 100 years old
By James Slack
Last updated at 12:42 AM on 07th April 2009

Police want to keep the DNA, fingerprints and photographs of innocent men and women until they are 100, a memo reveals.

Officers say that even if an individual is cleared of wrongdoing after their samples have been taken, there is no reason to remove their details from the database.

The police memo was uncovered by Tory immigration spokesman Damian Green. He wrote to police on behalf of two constituents whose samples were taken by police but were never convicted of an offence - and asked Nottinghamshire Police to remove the samples.

But the force replied that 'records will be retained on the Police National Computer until that person is deemed to have attained 100 years of age'.

This applies to samples, fingerprints, photographs and footwear impressions. The force's data protection officer said: 'I can advise you that any arrest that does not result in a charge does not constitute the removal of samples and records from police systems.'

Mr Green said: 'How many 100-year-olds are committing serious crimes? It would be laughable if it was not such a serious attack on the privacy of innocent people.

'The DNA database ought to be an important tool in fighting serious crime. Clogging it up with the records of the elderly and innocent makes it much less useful.'

The memo is likely to fuel controversy over the Government's DNA database, which contains genetic profiles of thousands of innocents.

Ministers' policy of indefinitely holding the DNA of innocent men and women has been ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights.

But Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has yet to say how the ruling will be implemented. The Home Office said it would 'fully comply' with the court's ruling.

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

Well, I hope they keep my details until I'm 100 - by then, I'll probably have forgotten who I am!

 

[Cavynaut]

Having seen the video footage of Mr Tomlinson being pushed to the ground by the police, can we now conclude that having your hands in your pockets and walking away from the boys in blue can now be seen as threatening behaviour?

Absolutely unbelievable.

 

[river_styx]

And here we have another step on the path to a fully state controlled society. School and me never really got along, I found the curriculum too restrictive back then, but apparently NuLabour want to have a bit more control over what the kiddiewinks are being taught.

Teachers have attacked politicians' meddling in the national curriculum and the censorship of English literature, warning against the schools secretary, Ed Balls, winning the power to dictate what pupils read and learn.

Delegates at the annual conference of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) voted to raise the issue of censorship with Balls following the banning of Carol Ann Duffy's poem Education for Leisure, which refers to knife crime, from an AQA exam board anthology last year after "extreme pressure" from a group of MPs.

They are also opposing moves by Balls to gain new legal powers to dictate the basic content of public exams in England. They backed a motion calling for the ATL to "do everything in its power to prevent any government censoring texts and dictating what is studied in our schools".

Teresa Dawes, an ATL member from Park House school in Berkshire, said: "It rather makes one think of historical book burnings and all that implies. If young people don't get the opportunity to think critically about difficult but important topics in school, topics that often trouble them, where do they discuss them? The idea of any politician determining which parts of history or science children are taught or which books they study is indeed a chilling and frightening one," she said.

Ministers have defended the move to gain new powers over basic content of exams saying it would allow them to step in if exam boards were proposing to scrap Shakespeare, for example. The Department for Children, Schools and Families says the new law, part of the apprenticeships, skills, children and learning bill, will for the first time limit government interference by explicitly preventing politicians from intervening in matters of exam processes and standards.

 

[Spookdaddy]

And here we have another step on the path to a fully state controlled society. School and me never really got along, I found the curriculum too restrictive back then, but apparently NuLabour want to have a bit more control over what the kiddiewinks are being taught.

This story surfaced last year, but as far as I can remember it was actually an examining board that chose to ban the poem after complaints from individual parents.

edit - Yes, original story here. Seems it wasn't parents complaints though, but those of examining officials.

It is ridiculous though.

 

[river_styx]

Perhaps they recycled the story to highlight the new changes in education?
It's still worth keeping an eye on and reminds me of The Leader episode from The Simpsons.

 

[Spookdaddy]

To be honest there have been stories like this since I was at school (which is, ahem, quite a while back) and very probably before. The idiocy of this kind of ban irritates me, but it has to be said I'm even more irritated by the woman who equates this exercise in narrow-mindedness with book-burning - what does she teach, English Lit and Advanced Hysteria?

 

[river_styx]

To be honest there have been stories like this since I was at school (which is, ahem, quite a while back) and very probably before. The idiocy of this kind of ban irritates me, but it has to be said I'm even more irritated by the woman who equates this exercise in narrow-mindedness with book-burning - what does she teach, English Lit and Advanced Hysteria?

Yeah that did get my attention as well. It's not like they've taken the book out of circulation, (not yet anyway) and to be honest I can't think of one book we were made to read at school that has ever stayed with me throughout life.

 

[ramonmercado]

To be honest there have been stories like this since I was at school (which is, ahem, quite a while back) and very probably before. The idiocy of this kind of ban irritates me, but it has to be said I'm even more irritated by the woman who equates this exercise in narrow-mindedness with book-burning - what does she teach, English Lit and Advanced Hysteria?

Yeah that did get my attention as well. It's not like they've taken the book out of circulation, (not yet anyway) and to be honest I can't think of one book we were made to read at school that has ever stayed with me throughout life.

Hmmm, Hamlet, theres a bit of knif crime in that.

 

[Ffalstaf]

Delegates at the annual conference of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) voted to raise the issue of censorship with Balls....

...as opposed to censorship without Balls?

 

[Cavynaut]

Hmmm, Hamlet, theres a bit of knif crime in that.

Plenty more in Julius Caesar!

 

[ramonmercado]

Hmmm, Hamlet, theres a bit of knif crime in that.

Plenty more in Julius Caesar!

It might be worth complaining to an Education Authority or sending a letter to the Mail condeminh Hamlet and/or Julius Caesar!

 

[Quake42]

I thought I read something about local police objecting to a production of Romeo & Juliet because of the knife crime element! Here it is:

Romeo and Juliet production sparks fears over knife crime

A production of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet has sparked fears over knife crime

But the producers of a new version of the play, specifically designed for a teenage audience, are so concerned that it could be seen to glamorise knife violence and gang violence in an era when fatal stabbings by teenagers have reached record levels that they have met with the Metropolitan police.

The production, at the famous Globe Theatre in central London, will be seen by 10,000 teenagers.

Its director, Bill Buckhurst yesterday met with Scotland Yard Commander Steve Allen, one of the officers leading the struggle against teenage knife crime in the capital.

Although the Globe was keen to stress the central tenets of the plot - which does include a number of fatal stabbings - would not be altered, a spokesman said the discussion would influence Mr Buckhurst's approach to the play, with the director anxious to ensure the production dealt sensitively with the issues of teenage gang warfare and knife crime.

Katharine Grice, a spokesman for Globe Education, said the director did not believe his production of Romeo and Juliet would fuel knife crime, but that he did want to conduct "responsible" research into how best to present it to a modern day, teenage audience.

"It is about taking responsibility and having awareness that knife crime touches on the lives of so many teenagers in London," she said. "These scenes must not be seen to glamorise it.

"They are not altering it, but the whole way the play is edited is with the audience in mind. What the director learns from that discussion might feed into rehearsals."

She added: "We want to tell this story in an honest way and one that is an honest reflection of what the 14-year-old audience may be experiencing.

"The director of this educational production wants to tell the story in an honest way and is meeting with the police as part of his research, as he would with any aspect of the production."

Romeo and Juliet is the story of the feuding Montague and Capulet family, set in Verona, Italy.

As the young couple fall for each other and are secretly married, the families continue to feud. Romeo's friend Mercutio is killed in a duel with Juliet's cousin Tybalt, which then results in Romeo slaying Tybalt in revenge.

The play culminates with Juliet, finding Romeo dead from poison, killing herself with his dagger.

Last year, London mayor Boris Johnson referenced the play when discussing knife violence.

Speaking to the Commons home affairs committee, Mr Johnson said: "My heart sinks when I hear and read of some of the language used to describe some of the victims of knife crime by other members of gangs.

"This stuff about 'You were a good soldier' or 'Fallen soldier'; we do need as repeatedly as possible as a society to detonate the myth that there is anything romantic or glamorous about these tragic episodes."

He added: "This is not the death of Mercutio taking place on the streets of London".

Last December it was announced that teenagers were killed on the streets of Britain at the rate of one every five days in 2008.

Official figures from each police force in the UK showed a record 66 teenagers met a violent death since January 1 - almost two thirds of whom were stabbed.

The production will begin March 9 with a final free performance on March 13 open to the public.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/thea ... crime.html

 

[Spookdaddy]

I thought I read something about local police objecting to a production of Romeo & Juliet because of the knife crime element! Here it is:...edit...

But there doesn't appear to be any mention of the police actually objecting. Reading the story, it appears to be the producers approaching the peelers with their concerns, rather than the other way round.

 

[lupinwick]

And it continues....

New CCTV cars to catch drivers using their mobile phones or being otherwise distracted at the wheel are being piloted by Greater Manchester Police.

The small Smart cars, which have a 12ft (3.6m) mast with a camera attached, are parked at junctions to monitor traffic.

Mike Downes of the Greater Manchester Casualty Reduction Partnership said the scheme was successfully "driving the number of accidents down".

But the AA's Paul Watters said drivers "might regard it as Big Brother".

Proportionate and fair

Two cars are currently being piloted in Greater Manchester, the first of their kind in the UK.

Anyone seen driving while distracted - eating at the wheel, playing with the radio or applying make-up for instance - is filmed by the cameras.

Later, a letter is sent to the owner of the car, in many cases along with a fine.

Anyone caught using their mobile will be asked to pay £60 and have three points added to their licence. Fines could also be handed out to anyone who is thought to be driving without due care and attention, or similar offences.

According to the Partnership - also known as Drivesafe - there have been 406 collisions in Greater Manchester in the past two years which can be attributed to distracted drivers.

Of those, 51 were said to involve the use of a mobile phone as a significant factor.

Mr Downes said the cars would only trace people who are committing an offence.

"The camera is only trained on the vehicle to secure the evidence," he said.

"I would say the actions we are taking are reasonable, proportionate and fair in light of the fact that we are trying to save lives."

'Lacks connection'

The scheme is only a few weeks into the pilot, so figures on the numbers of people who have been caught using this technology are unavailable.

But the CCTV cars have already attracted criticism from people who argue they are an infringement of people's privacy.

Paul Watters from the Automobile Association (AA), said he had reservations about the cars, and would watch the pilot scheme with interest.

"CCTV enforcement lacks connection with the driver until after the event and some drivers might regards it as Big Brother.

"We think that most drivers would prefer police in cars to dish out tickets on the spot and instil better driving behaviour," he said.

If the scheme is seen to be a success in reducing the number of accidents, those behind it hope it could be rolled out across the UK.

Some councils already use Smart cars with cameras to track parking and bus lane offences.

Source

Whether or not this is a good thing will depend on your view point, however scope for mission creep or general abuse is quite great. Perhaps issuing warnings rather than fines is a better plan?

 

[Ffalstaf]

I have this paranoid fantasy that the scheme is a front for pointing video cameras into cars for general intelligence gathering.

Scenario A: "Mr Khan is a person of interest to us police, so let's see if we can't use these cameras to track his movements."

Scenario B: "Professor Smith and his company Surveillatron have asked if they can test their face recognition software on our cameras. Well, why not. And let's save a copy of all the captured images to our own database. Bound to come in handy - especially when we find a way to link it to our database of DNA profiles of innocent people."

Scenario C: "The Pry Minister is having lunch with the Obamas today, so everyone driving into the city is to be treated as a potential terrorist. Let's match the face of every driver who comes past these cameras with our suspected terrorist database. Don't want to miss any, so let's use a confidence level of, say...sixty percent?"

Scenario D: "Ministerial car? Get a shot of that document on the seat!"

 

[Analogue Boy]

After hearing one MP saying after the photgraphing of those secret documents that maybe photographers should be prohibited from entering Downing Street we get more news that the press find access blocked.

The Met this week apologised to press photographers who were prevented from covering clashes between protesters and riot officers on 1 April.

Journalists claim the police used a part of the public order act designed to prevent "serious public disorder, serious criminal damage or serious disruption to the life of the community" to force them to leave key areas of the protests or face arrest. Photographers felt they were being deliberately stopped from gathering potential evidence of police behaviour

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009 ... nson-death