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

Britain: Police State?

Why are they "nutters"? Do they think they should be able to speed at will, or are they simply against the idea of sneaky revenue-raising cameras that have no discretion like a traffic policeman? In fact, your ANPR stuff can be far more of a sinister thing than normal speed cameras.

If you don't like the grief you are getting, find another job and stop cheerfully giving the Rozzers the tools they increasingly turn to for unnecessary surveillance and to keep an eye on our population. I mean, how dare that woman attend a anti-war rally, good job the powers-that-be had your system to help them drive her over the edge, good work. Maybe you can move onto Tazer development?
 
Call me fussy but when we once had first class tickets [a present, which would have costed £590], we really didn't want any peasants sitting in there for free.
Click to expand...

Does that also include peasants who got tickets as gifts?
 
Re: Well...

KarlD said:
I work as an electronics engineer developing these types of ANPR cameras
Click to expand...

OOOOOH interesting. What developments in the technology and what other functionality can we expect to see in the next few years, if you don't mind me asking?
 
Re: Well...

jimv1 said:
KarlD said:
I work as an electronics engineer developing these types of ANPR cameras
Click to expand...

OOOOOH interesting. What developments in the technology and what other functionality can we expect to see in the next few years, if you don't mind me asking?
Click to expand...
New generation of cameras that i am working on are smaller, lighter use less power and can tell what type of vehicle they are looking at so if a lorry driver steals a car licence plate to avoid paying congestion charges, we can tell.
One hint i would give is don't try to use the sprays that you can buy over the internet to try to defeat the cameras, they don't work with our systems and are more likely to bring you to the attention of the police, as is trying to tamper with your numberplate.
 
To go back to an earlier part of this thread with regard to speed cameras. I have noticed over many years that quite a few motorists slam on the brakes approaching a speed camera and accelerate once past it. This being the case the cameras have little effect on the overall average speed on the road.
 
tilly50 said:
To go back to an earlier part of this thread with regard to speed cameras. I have noticed over many years that quite a few motorists slam on the brakes approaching a speed camera and accelerate once past it. This being the case the cameras have little effect on the overall average speed on the road.
Click to expand...

True, we all do that. On the other hand, they are perfect for slowing drivers down at bad accident spots. I dont mind these anywhere near how much I loathe average speed cameras on quiet straight roads!!
 
... and to controll pollution as in the congestion charging scheme in london and other cities around the world.
Click to expand...

A laudable sentiment, but unfortunately totally negated, in the UK at least, by the following nifty bit of HMRC "advice" to local councils:

"Up until now the Department for Transport discouraged such schemes, increasing motorists' frustration at being met by a succession of red lights.

It was because the Government feared motorists who were travelling smoothly, rather than stopping and starting, would use less fuel and pay less to the Treasury in duty as a result."

Full story here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/new ... -wave.html

And i'm sure we all know about the Hollerith corporation, and how once they became International Business Machines everything was OK again...
 
Twin_Star said:
... and to controll pollution as in the congestion charging scheme in london and other cities around the world.
Click to expand...

A laudable sentiment, but unfortunately totally negated, in the UK at least, by the following nifty bit of HMRC "advice" to local councils:

"Up until now the Department for Transport discouraged such schemes, increasing motorists' frustration at being met by a succession of red lights.

It was because the Government feared motorists who were travelling smoothly, rather than stopping and starting, would use less fuel and pay less to the Treasury in duty as a result."

Full story here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/new ... -wave.html

And i'm sure we all know about the Hollerith corporation, and how once they became International Business Machines everything was OK again...
Click to expand...

Ah well no I wasnt really aware of that scheme, congestion charging works like this

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/congest ... /6718.aspx

and now low emission zone as well
 
This is like living in a fucking Police State!! Sorry Pietro, but you are wholly wrong to move those posts, you've thrown the baby out with the bathwater!

What we had here was a series of posts absolutely on-topic and showing in no uncertain terms exactly how a Police State develops. Strange that, isn't it, in a thread with this title? The pushbike stuff was illustrative.

Contrary to popular belief, oppressive regimes don't usually appear overnight, with law and order being dispensed by unaccountable individuals, Darth Vader doesn't appear and drop off a load of faceless stormtroopers to crush the public at large, convenient baddies to boo and hiss at. And those regimes aren't kept in place by aggressive police and security forces, at least not for long.

Oppressive regimes are propped up by "good upstanding folk" like our pushbike fan here. Anyone following those supposedly off-topic posts would recall someone declaring he works on apparently "good" ANPR systems which may or may not be abused by their operators. When called on it, within the space of a couple of posts, it seems that this quiet, ordinary bloke working away on benign systems is actually quite passionate about his hobby.
Passionate to the point of appearing somewhat aggressive to those who question the validity of it all, indeed quite happy to "give them the fight they are itching for" along with 49-odd of his buddies. Far from sounding like the pissed-off cyclist who takes his life in his hands when he goes to work on his pushbike, we have someone who appears to be saying that he should be allowed to carry on his leisure pursuit, which he admits is dangerous, and fuck you if you don't like it. I wonder what he'd do with people who might perhaps protest at people racing down their street by stepping out into the road to slow him down during a race? Talk to them nicely about their concerns, or dismiss them as idiot petrolheads, fuck 'em, take them away officer, they don't understand, peasants?

Not only that, but he also goes from saying his work enables the police to catch terrorists (good) to admitting they are also used by council for revenue raising (not good, IMHO). Without going through his posts to look for a quote, I get the impression he'd be happy for any motorists who are beastly to his beloved pushbike riders to be pin-pointed and followed up thanks to his camera systems. He never breaks the law, apparently, so bollocks, his camera systems are for the righteous.

Whilst I apologise to Karl_D for appearing to single him out for a personal attack, what can I do when he drops the opportunity to demonstrate the point about the development of a Police State right into my lap?

I think it wouldn't be so bad for me if he acknowledged that his work is increasingly going to be the way the powers-that-be keep the population under control, to the extent they feel necessary, but that he needs money, so that's that. Fair enough, we all do things we perhaps aren't happy with to feed our children, such is life.

But, by claiming only scoundrels and ne'er-do-wells are caught by them and within 2 posts changing even that, he shows, to my mind at least, precisely how the ordinary man on the street lets an oppressive regime develop, indeed helps it along.
As I say Karl, please accept my apologies for any personal slight, this has nothing to do with pushbikes (indeed I have a spandex fetish, as demonstrated by my avid attendance to the gym window for Ladies' Aerobics), it's about the way systems are developed by people who can't or won't see the very real downside. Anyway, seeing as he seems to spend his working hours on here, it'll be years before his Robo-DeathCam becomes reality! :lol:

But, to reiterate the point picked up by Twin_Star above........ah fuck it, anyone who gives a shit can follow the link to Pietro's comedy bicycle thread, pick up the relevant points then come back.........
 
Congratulations on getting the your Post back somewhere something like on topic, LordRsmaker. I also invite others to follow the link and read the new, split off-topic, 'Auto-Philia & Bicycle-Psychosis' Thread.

--- --- --- --- ---

Indeed, when people are more busy about worrying whether, or not, some other group, or individuals, are being allowed, more, or less, liberty, than themselves, or their own, then, that is often the very weak point where the forces of repression can operate. 'We're bringing in this new piece of legislation, because the other guy is taking liberties, but don't worry, it won't affect your freedoms... much.'
 
At the end of the day, the more surveillance over our lives there is, the more power there is to track down serious criminals but also the more power at the fingertips of anybody with the access, should they wish to abuse it (or governmentally sanctioned use it).
 
Once again, the Druids in Blue prepare for the ancient ritual of their annual fight, against the Midsummer Solstice worshipping crusties, or something.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/20...olstice-police-zero-tolerance-drink-drugs-g20

Big police operation planned for Stonehenge summer solstice

Wiltshire force expect warm weather to draw large crowds and warns it will take tough stand on drink and drugs

guardian.co.uk, Steven Morris. 19 June 2009

A big police operation involving an unmanned drone, horses and drugs sniffer dogs will be launched at Stonehenge tomorrow as huge crowds descend on the ancient site for the summer solstice.

Because the celebrations fall over the weekend and fine weather is predicted, bigger crowds than usual are expected and Wiltshire police have said they will clamp down heavily on antisocial behaviour.

Restrictions are being placed on the amount of alcohol revellers can bring in and police have said they will not tolerate illegal drug taking or unlawful raves.

The force's no-nonsense approach, after a more relaxed feel in recent years, has raised fears that there could be clashes.

Some peace-loving druids have told the Guardian that they will be staying away because they fear the combination of large crowds - possibly more than 30,000 ? and the police's stance could lead to trouble.

Police have played down the idea that the event is the first big test of how police control large crowds since the violent G20 protests. They have denied that the presence of the drone and police horses shows they are taking a "zero-tolerance" approach to the event and say such measures are simply to make sure everyone is safe.

Andy Marsh, assistant chief constable of Wiltshire police, said: "The celebrations will be policed the same as any other public event. We want those attending to have a safe and enjoyable time but within the law.

"This year the event is over a weekend and more people than normal are likely to attend. The public have a right to expect that our planning takes account of the likely increased numbers and also that we will use public resources efficiently making best use of the latest technology."

Marsh warned people not to set up raves or free festivals before or after the solstice. He said the supply and use of illegal drugs greatly increased the danger to everyone and police would deal "firmly but proportionately with any such behaviour".

English Heritage, which manages the site, has stipulated that no more than four cans of beer or a bottle of wine per person will be allowed.

In its guidance English Heritage says: "Illegal drugs are still illegal at Stonehenge as they are anywhere else. The police will be on site during the access period and will take immediate action against anyone flouting the law."
Click to expand...
One does have to wonder how the DiBs can even justify the expensive and manpower for this sort of operation, these days. :confused:

In the days when unregulated fun is the worst of crimes.

Of course, it could all go quite swimmingly and everything be absolutely tickety boo. The 1985 'Battle of the Beanfield', being just so much ancient history. I sincerely hope so.
http://tash.gn.apc.org/sh_bean.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jun/12/ukcrime.tonythompson
 
I am really getting very tired of all this, you have a go at me because of your ignorance about cyclists and your agresive attitude toward them and I put you right on a few points about that, and frankly I really don't care if you have paranoid fantasies about big brother watching you, you are not really that interesting.
I don't give a shit if someone says I shouldn't work on my cameras because someone might do something naughty with them its like saying I shouldn't make a chair in case someone sitting on it builds a bomb.
 
KarlD said:
frankly I really don't care if you have paranoid fantasies about big brother watching you, you are not really that interesting.
Click to expand...

Paranoid fantasies? Hang on. In an earlier post you brought up this case...

Anyway there was a case recently of a woman who went to an anti-war demo last year and the police put her registration details on a watch list witht the result that she got stopped about 20 times a week so she complained to the police complaints people which got her nowhere. this drove her a bit nuts and she started phoning our offices and leaving death threats on the answerphone and that eventualy got her arrested.
So the police do abuse their powers on a regular basis mainly because they know they can get away with it.
Click to expand...

That's not paranoia. That sounds like SOMEONE was out to make her life difficult even though she was exercising a legal right to demonstrate.
 
KarlD said:
I don't give a shit if someone says I shouldn't work on my cameras because someone might do something naughty with them its like saying I shouldn't make a chair in case someone sitting on it builds a bomb.
Click to expand...

Not really, maybe if you made restraint chairs we would say you shouldn't because they are generally used for nefarious purposes. (Although I do know a Domme who has a lovely one and time spent strapped to it is divine!)

Hey, don't get upset, no-one is having a go at you, because of your pushbike or anything else. If you believe that the level of surveillance in this country is acceptable, and are happy to continue developing camera systems believing only the odd rogue policeman will abuse them and deviate from trying to catch the Tipton Taliban by embracing the Dark Side and harrassing fools who stupidly exercise their right to free speech and protest, then there is nothing further we can say, is there?

However, the day you feel a twinge of conscience that you may in fact be shoring up Plod's "Database of The Enemy Within and Potential Troublemakers", feel free to let us know. I don't want you to burn your workplace down and sign on the Dole, rather just acknowledge the fact that you are as guilty as the guy who develops Tazers when it comes to helping create a yawning gulf between "them & us".

Oh, and for the third time, seeing as you have nothing to hide, will you lobby for all pushbike riders to be licensed, insured and have unique IDs readable by camera systems like yours? I'm drafting a petition, will you be one of the first to sign, as a law-abiding pushbiker?
 
The problem with too much information being collected on individuals is that if it exists it can be used for other purposes. I remember reading somewhere that the Nazis where able to round up the Jews in some countries easier than in others because the local id cards included religion.
Moving this forward there is a potential that harmless data some day could cause you a problem.
 
Video shows surveillance protesters bundled to ground by police

• Women arrested for challenging officer with no badge number
• Footage shows arresting officers binding Fit Watch pair's feet
• IPCC to receive video as concerns grow over police tactics


Two female protesters who challenged police officers for not displaying their badge numbers were bundled to the ground, arrested and held in prison for four days, according to an official complaint lodged today.

The incident was caught on camera, and footage shows officers standing on the women's feet and applying pressure to their necks immediately after the women attempted to photograph a fellow officer who had refused to give his badge number.

The images are likely to fuel concern over the policing of protests, which is already subject to a review by the national police inspectorate and two parliamentary inquiries after the G20 demonstrations and the death of Ian Tomlinson.

Val Swain, 43, and Emily Apple, 33, both mothers with young children, believe they were deliberately targeted for arrest at last year's climate camp demonstration in Kent because they campaign for Fit Watch, a protest group that opposes police surveillance at demonstrations.

Etc......


http://tinyurl.com/memcc8
 
And according to the bbc's version of that story:

Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes, said "huge questions" needed to be asked about the policing of the Kingsnorth Climate Camp.

He added: "I was the first MP to attend Kingsnorth and I myself witnessed unacceptable behaviour by the police in hitting demonstrators who were offering no threat to the police."
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/8112537.stm

Pretty grim really. :(
 
It's good that an upright, influential citizen such as an MP has witnessed first hand any heavy-handed policing at a protest. And, no, I'm not being sarky about an MP's probity.

However, I'd guess the Party will tell him to clam up, sticking shoulder-to-shoulder with The Big Two when it comes to using "The War on Terror" to justify boot-boy tactics.
 
I find it amazing that a bigger fuss hasn't been made by members of the opposition.
But you're right, any dissent among MPs on issues such as these seems to be rapidly quelled somehow.
 
LordRsmacker said:
KarlD said:
Oh, and for the third time, seeing as you have nothing to hide, will you lobby for all pushbike riders to be licensed, insured and have unique IDs readable by camera systems like yours? I'm drafting a petition, will you be one of the first to sign, as a law-abiding pushbiker?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I keep saying to you,all competetive cyclist are insured, I have insurance for ten million of your earth pounds, I have a racing licence which is my unique ID so if other cyclist who don't get involved in racing want to have the same system I have no issues with that.
 
I notice you didn't move KarlD's post while you had a chance.

I on the other hand have had enough of having my posts moved.

Bye.
 
Gowd, I'm sick of pushbikers being everywhere [here on the forum], they are not THAT interesting. Good they have their own thread now, so I can avoid it... :?
 
Anyone still think a DNA uber-database is a good idea? Thee could be some issues with the reliability of the data on it. Especially if your genotype is rasperry and cream :lol:

Police stored DNA with ice cream
A DNA evidence bag
DNA samples: Careful handling required

West Yorkshire Police have been storing DNA samples from suspects and car crash victims in a freezer also used for ice cream, a watchdogs' report has said.

The criticism comes in a report from the prisons watchdog and the chief inspector of constabulary.

The inspectors said the management of the samples needed urgent attention to avoid undermining prosecutions.

West Yorkshire Police said the samples found in the freezer were of "no value" and would not have been analysed.

The inspectors also said staff at police custody suites had been confused about which sample belonged to which suspect.

West Yorkshire Police have 13 blocks of cells legally approved to hold suspects following their arrest.

Inspectors from the two watchdogs visited a sample of these cells and accompanying facilities in Leeds and Bradford in October 2008.

Labelling

The watchdogs said they were concerned about how officers were handling DNA, blood and urine samples taken in the custody suites, many of which would be used as evidence in prosecutions.

"Samples were incorrectly stored in fridges and freezers alongside ice cream, with some improperly bagged," said the report.

"This led to confusion among staff tasked with submitting samples, so many were not submitted for analysis and had been allowed to remain in freezers for a number of years."

One sample, labelled as relating to someone killed in a traffic accident, had neither been sent for toxicology tests or disposed of.

"We were unsure whether it really related to a road death investigation or whether there was an error on the label," the report said.

The watchdogs said that some freezers were insecure and some samples had defrosted.

"The force was potentially missing opportunities to bring offenders to justice and solve old cases," said the inspectors.

"These practices were exposing the force to unacceptable levels of risk. The maintenance of public confidence in forensic evidence is crucial."

A spokeswoman for West Yorkshire Police said: ""The report refers to one instance of ice cream being found in a fridge near forensic samples.

"These samples were hair, blood, urine and fingernail samples from people who had been eliminated from criminal enquiries.

"[The samples] were of no further value and there was no intention of either subjecting them to analysis or putting them on the DNA database."
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8125317.stm
 
Police powers for 2012 Olympics alarm critics

• Civil rights activists say new law curbs free speech
• Rules could allow officials to raid private homes

The government was accused tonight of giving itself draconian powers to clamp down on protests at the 2012 Olympics. Critics said the powers were so broad they would potentially give private contractors the right to forcibly enter people's homes and seize materials.

Opposition parties and civil liberties groups criticised the powers as top security officials announced plans concerned with keeping the games, to be held mostly in London, safe from terrorist attack and from "domestic extremists" and public order problems like disruptive protests.

The legislation is directed at curbing advertising near the Olympic venues. A government spokesperson said the laws, passed in 2006, were meant to stop "over-commercialisation" of the games.

But civil rights campaigners are worried about several clauses in the London Olympic Games and Games Act 2006. Section 19(4) could cover protest placards, they said, as it read: "The regulations may apply in respect of advertising of any kind including in particular – (a) advertising of a non-commercial nature, and (b) announcements or notices of any kind."

Section 22 allows a "constable or enforcement officer" to "enter land or premises" where they believe such an advert is being shown or produced. It allows for materials to be destroyed, and for the use of "reasonable force". The power to force entry requires a court warrant. Causing still further concern is a section granting the powers to an enforcement officer appointed by Olympic Delivery Authority.

Anita Coles, policy officer for Liberty, said: "This goes much further than protecting the Olympic logo for commercial use. Regulations could ban signs urging boycotts of sponsors with sweat shops. Then private contractors designated by the Olympic authority could enter homes and other premises in the vicinity, seizing or destroying private property."

The Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokesman, Chris Huhne, said: "This sort of police action runs the risk of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The police should take a deep breath and read the excellent report from the chief inspector of constabulary on the tolerance of protest. We should aim to show the Chinese that you can run a successful Olympics without cracking down on protesters and free speech."

Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, said: "This is a government who just doesn't understand civil liberties – they may claim these powers won't be used but the frank truth is no one will believe them. Neither the police nor any other official should be invading people's homes for what appear to be commercial reasons."

A senior government security official said the powers would not be used to suppress protests or political placards. And the assistant commissioner, Chris Alison, in charge of the policing of the 2012 Olympics, said: "We are not going into people's houses to stop people protesting."

But Peter McNeil, who opposes the staging of equestrian events in Greenwich park, told BBC London: "This is dreadful. It's bullying taken to another level."

A spokesperson for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport said the legal provisions on games advertising were meant to "prevent ambush marketing – not prevent or restrict lawful protests".
Click to expand...

The Guardian
 
Picture library fotolibra ( http://www.fotolibra.com/ ) had this to say in a newsletter today:

ASK A PERLICEMAN

London’s Metropolitan Police guidelines issued last month for professional and amateur photographers claimed that under the Terrorism Act 2000, police had the right to view images taken in public.

Now they’ve corrected themselves and agreed that officers can only view images belonging to photographers they reasonably suspect to be terrorists.

You have the right to take photographs in public without interference from police or any need for permits, and police officers need to obtain a court order before viewing your images.

Of course if you look like a terrorist, we can’t help you. If you don’t, then stand up for your rights. Have a look at http://photographernotaterrorist.org/

It doesn't only affect us pinko commie Eurotrash either — in the Land Of The Free the Atlanta Police threatened to arrest Trey Ratcliff, a photographer who took a picture of the Coca Cola Museum from public space because he “looked too professional.” :roll:
 
rynner2 said:
London’s Metropolitan Police guidelines issued last month for professional and amateur photographers claimed that under the Terrorism Act 2000, police had the right to view images taken in public.

Now they’ve corrected themselves and agreed that officers can only view images belonging to photographers they reasonably suspect to be terrorists.

...the Atlanta Police threatened to arrest Trey Ratcliff, a photographer who took a picture of the Coca Cola Museum from public space because he “looked too professional.” :roll:
Click to expand...
That's me let off, then - I never look even vaguely professional with my camera...

It's an interesting point of discussion, though, this "photographer not a terrorist" issue. What might be euphemistically be termed the "railway enthusiast community" are also rather worried,because their interest leads them to photograph a lot of potential terrorist targets. Not that any terrorists have ever relied on pictures they took of a railway station, as far as can be ascertained, but that doesn't stop the BTP (British Transport Police) behaving like arses on occasion...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top