Britain: Police State?

[KarlD]

As for unsubstantiated, ill informed and downright false nonsense spouted by the trolls, it's a bit like me suggesting that Pips ANPR systems fitted to our vehicles is arguably the most bug ridden piece of shit ever manufatured and their technicians are knuckle dragging pre humans when it comes to software. However, that wouldn't be fair given my observations are only based on the experience of two vehicles in our fleet.

I would tell you why the pips system you have is a peice of crap, but there is a history and a lot of politics involved and it would cause all kinds of issues,as dor the technicians well...yeah they have some stories of the knuckle dragging police officers so I wouldnt ride off on your high horse just yet. as we both know the UK police force is run by corrupt and stupid people who don't have the imagination to get into private sector security work.

 

[KarlD]

You see, before you start shouting about how incorruptable the british police are I used to work in Cambridge and I know and sometimes drink with the guy who supplies the cocaine and amphetamines to several cambridge police officers who are based in the parkers piece police station, the pub where the drug dealer regularly hangs out is what 100 yards from the police station. I could go to the papers and start naming names but whats the point? it's never going to stop, all that it would get me is arrested on some trumped up charge.

 

[Quake42]

You see, before you start shouting about how incorruptable the british police are I used to work in Cambridge and I know and sometimes drink with the guy who supplies the cocaine and amphetamines to several cambridge police officers who are based in the parkers piece police station, the pub where the drug dealer regularly hangs out is what 100 yards from the police station. I could go to the papers and start naming names but whats the point? it's never going to stop, all that it would get me is arrested on some trumped up charge.

I have no doubt that a number of serving police officers use recreational drugs. This does not in itself make the police service corrupt. It may make those individual officers hypocritical, but IMO it says more about the ludicrous nature of prohibition than anything else.

I remain genuinely interested in the police's responsibility or otherwise to follow up on complaints, and why this responsibility seems to apply in some cases and not others.

New approach. Try calling and pointing out at the off that you are in no-way complaining about the crime, you merely thought that the police ought to be notified by someone. Personally, you don't really mind if the neighbour burns down the bus-shelter.

I wasn't sure whether this was meant as a stab at me. Perhaps I'm being oversensitive. The point I was trying to make in response to Rynner's comment is that it may be that in disputes between neighbours etc the police sometimes request an independent witness so as not get drawn into matters which are not best addressed in the criminal justice system. I wasn't implying at all that Rynner's complaint was without foundation; I just expect that officers are called out all the time about matters which are not really within their remit, especially when disputes between neighbours are concerned.

 

[Ginando]

As for unsubstantiated, ill informed and downright false nonsense spouted by the trolls, it's a bit like me suggesting that Pips ANPR systems fitted to our vehicles is arguably the most bug ridden piece of shit ever manufatured and their technicians are knuckle dragging pre humans when it comes to software. However, that wouldn't be fair given my observations are only based on the experience of two vehicles in our fleet.

I would tell you why the pips system you have is a peice of crap, but there is a history and a lot of politics involved and it would cause all kinds of issues,as dor the technicians well...yeah they have some stories of the knuckle dragging police officers so I wouldnt ride off on your high horse just yet. as we both know the UK police force is run by corrupt and stupid people who don't have the imagination to get into private sector security work.

You see, before you start shouting about how incorruptable the british police are I used to work in Cambridge and I know and sometimes drink with the guy who supplies the cocaine and amphetamines to several cambridge police officers who are based in the parkers piece police station, the pub where the drug dealer regularly hangs out is what 100 yards from the police station. I could go to the papers and start naming names but whats the point? it's never going to stop, all that it would get me is arrested on some trumped up charge.

Oh sorry Karl. Did you think I was having a pop at you. Oh dear that is a shame. I did not realise you work for Pips. It must be down to my low intelligence and lack of modern training. Naturally I was just pointing out how unfair it is to stereotype a group of people based on minimal evidence. But as for having a go at you, oh no that could not be further from the truth.

Naturally I believe every word you say about your drug dealing friend and his Police customers. There is no way such a pillar of British society as the local dealer could possibly lie about his customers. Also the fact that he dealt in a pub 100 yards from the station backs all this up. Did he move into there specifically to supply the local nick? Maybe you should have considered engaging the services of Max Clifford when you were thinking about naming names. I am certain any quality paper such as the Daily Star or the Socialist Worker would pay you a fortune to dish the dirt on the local Sergeant. Imagine the headlines 'Three stripes on his uniform and 3 lines on the charge bar' It is very encouraging that dealers now offer a name list of their customers to their chums. Maybe its done so that if they go off sick, the friend can take over the job for a few days.

I take my hat off to you sir. You are an example to all. As for the move into private sector security work, there is a vacancy in the local job centre for a night watchman. Now where did I put my CV?

 

[Stormkhan]

Police officers are also people - this is inescapable . Considering the shit job they have to do and the side (usually horrible) of life they see on a day-to-day basis, would it be beyond comprehension that they use illicit drugs or become violent to match the world they are in?

The problem is that the police officer is there, paid by the populace, to enforce laws that we've agreed to (in a distant, theoretical manner). If they flout the laws that they are paid - and expected - to do then it not only abrogates their position to enforce the same laws but it destroys any form of public confidence in the organisation as a whole. Yes, law-breaking coppers aren't common but they do affect the Force and its position as a whole.

Oh, and I'm sure that Ginando isn't proposing that one persons testimony is less valid than anothers, despite the witnesses probity? After all, how the feck could the police service use informants to prosecute then?

The self-righteous whine of "He's a drug dealer so what he says is suspect!" is a tad at odds with the concept that a witness is a witness, regardless of how convenient their testimony fits the CPS' action. I agree, it's convenient for a criminal to complain and point fingers at the opposing forces but just because it's spoken by a perp, doesn't mean that the words should be ignored. Just taken into consideration with the circumstances. After all, Mr George Smert who complains to coppers about litter left on his front lawn is highly unlikely to be experienced in selling a couple of grams of coke to Sergeant Chuckles.

 

[sonofajoiner]

Now this might not be strictly speaking, a supporting example of a burgeoning 'police state', but I think it is an example of a grossly over-regulated state, where the government and it's various agencies unjustly interfere in our private lives. I often think that it's this kind of ridiculous and damaging over-regulation that people are getting at when they talk of britain becoming a 'police state'.

The policewoman branded an illegal childminder - for looking after her colleague’s toddler

By Andy Whelan
Last updated at 9:07 AM on 27th September 2009

A policewoman told last night how she was banned from looking after her colleague’s daughter because she was not a registered childminder.

Detective Constable Leanne Shepherd was ordered by the education watchdog Ofsted to end her private arrangement with her friend, DC Lucy Jarrett, or they would face prosecution.

The Thames Valley Police detectives – who gave birth within a few months
of each other – share a job at Aylesbury Police Station in Buckinghamshire.

But the mothers, both 32, have now been told by Ofsted that surveillance teams will spy on their homes to make sure they are not continuing to care for each other’s daughter.

For the past two-and-a-half years, one looked after both of the girls while the other worked a ten-hour shift. Both worked two days a week.

But in July, after a complaint believed to be from a neighbour, DC Shepherd received a surprise visit from an Ofsted inspector, who accused her of running an ‘illegal childminding business’.

Rules state that friends cannot gain a ‘reward’ by looking after a child for more than two hours outside the child’s home unless they register with Ofsted and follow the same regulations as normal childminders.

Under the rules, reward is defined as ‘the supply of service or goods’ or ‘reciprocal arrangement’. The mothers were told their ‘reward’ was free care for their daughters.

A petition on the 10 Downing Street website calling for the regulations to be scrapped had already received almost 2,000 signatures last night.

An Ofsted spokesman said: ‘Ofsted applies the regulations in the 2006 Childcare Act. We are discussing with the Department for Children, Schools and Families the interpretation of the word “reward” to establish if we might be able to make a change.’

In the meantime DC Shepherd, of Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, has had to put her two-year-old daughter Edie in a nursery costing £260 a month and change her work schedule, which she claims has placed an ‘extra burden’ on her already overworked colleagues.

DC Shepherd, who is separated from Edie’s father, DC James Shepherd, said the childcare arrangement worked because her ex-husband and DC Jarrett’s husband, Inspector Bob Jarrett, both worked irregular shifts.

She said: ‘I gave birth in November 2006 and went back to work part-time in April 2007 as a trainee detective constable. Lucy had returned to work part-time five months before, and was also a trainee detective constable.

‘We were the same rank, worked in the same station, had daughters the same age and were close friends, so it made sense to job-share. We would split the 40-hour week, both working two ten-hour days, and the arrangement was working perfectly.

‘Our job is very demanding and sometimes I’m required to work overtime.

'It would be difficult to get a childminder to stay late after a ten-hour day. Besides, it would have cost a fortune.’

And DC Shepherd added: ‘Most importantly, our arrangement was ideal for the kids. Edie and Lucy’s daughter Amy have become like sisters and love spending time with each other.

‘When the Ofsted inspector turned up, the first thing she said was, “I have had a report that you’re running an illegal childminding business.”

‘I straightaway thought she must be mistaken, so invited her into my home to explain that we were police officers and best friends helping each other out.

‘But she told me I was breaking the law and must end the arrangement with Lucy immediately. I was stunned – completely devastated. I spent the whole day crying because I couldn’t see how I could continue working.’

DC Shepherd claims she has received a letter from Ofsted telling her she would be subjected to random surveillance to make sure she was not continuing to care for her friend’s daughter.

She said: ‘The first month’s nursery fees were £260, which is a huge expense considering I only earn just over £900 a month. I cannot understand why the Government is punishing me for wanting to get back to work and pay tax.

‘Now I’ve applied for childcare benefits to pay the nursery fees. This ridiculous legislation needs to be reviewed. There must be hundreds, if not thousands, of mothers wanting to do the best for their children who have no idea they are breaking the law.’

DC Jarrett, who lives in Buckingham, now also sends her daughter to nursery on the days she works.

She said: ‘I think I know best how to look after my own daughter. I’d rather my best friend look after her than a complete stranger.’

Dr Richard House, founder of the Open EYE Campaign, which wants fewer restrictions on childminders, said: ‘This extraordinary edict from Ofsted is the latest example of a pervasive and deeply worrying trend towards Government becoming ever more closely involved in micro-managing parental and family decisions.’

Mail On Sunday

 

[rynner2]

Now this might not be strictly speaking, a supporting example of a burgeoning 'police state', but I think it is an example of a grossly over-regulated state, where the government and it's various agencies unjustly interfere in our private lives.

This is already under discussion in the Stupid Rules... thread.
(And you can sign a petition about it!)

Ironic that these 'Police State' rules should be applied to - er - Police Officers!

 

[stu neville]

Oh sorry Karl. Did you think I was having a pop at you. Oh dear that is a shame. I did not realise you work for Pips. It must be down to my low intelligence and lack of modern training. Naturally I was just pointing out how unfair it is to stereotype a group of people based on minimal evidence. But as for having a go at you, oh no that could not be further from the truth.

Exactly as I thought - I didn't think for one minute you would be doing such a thing, but it's always nice to have one's conclusions confirmed . As for the trollish nature of certain posters - to be honest, the more someone looks, sounds and generally smells like a troll, the more likely they are to be one. Happily, we have the resources to fully investigate and expedite any such complaint, and we're distinctly victim-orientated.

All reports gratefully received .

 

[OneWingedBird]

Since the police are taking a bit of a hammering on this thread, and i'm usually quite critical, i'm going to say that i've just had to report some verbal abuse/hatecrime from the chavs down the road and the cops that came out were super.

One of them 'knows' the family well and was hoping i'd be able to id the lad who lives there as the perp as he's been itching to get him for something he can bang him up for for ages, said he was hoping he kicked off when he went down to do the disruption so that he could nick him for that I guess the police get pretty frustrated too.

 

[rynner2]

Right, now we can all police the state...!

Public to monitor CCTV from home

Members of the public could earn cash by monitoring commercial CCTV cameras in their own home, in a scheme planned to begin next month.

The Internet Eyes website will offer up to £1,000 if viewers spot shoplifting or other crimes in progress.

The site's owners say they want to combine crime prevention with the incentive of winning money.

But civil liberties campaigners say the idea is "distasteful" and asks private citizens to spy on each other.

The private company scheme - due to go live in Stratford-upon-Avon in November - aims to stream live footage to subscribers' home computers from CCTV cameras installed in shops and other businesses.

If viewers see a crime in progress, they can press a button to alert store detectives and collect points worth up to £1,000.

Internet Eyes founder James Woodward said: "This is about crime prevention.

"CCTV isn't watched, it isn't monitored, and not enough cameras are watched at any one time.

"What we're doing is we're putting more eyes onto those cameras so that they are monitored".

However civil liberty campaigners say they are horrified by what they say is the creation of a "snoopers' paradise".

Charles Farrier from No CCTV said: "It is a distasteful and a worrying development.

"This is a private company using private cameras and asking private citizens to spy on each other. It represents a privatisation of the surveillance state."

Internet Eyes has defended its plans, saying viewers will not know exactly which camera they're watching or where it is located.

Although the UK is the "world capital of CCTV" - with an estimated one camera per 14 people - viewing hours of mostly tedious and often poor quality images is a lengthy and unpopular job, said the BBC's home affairs correspondent Andy Tighe.

In August, an internal report commissioned by London's Metropolitan Police estimated that in 2008 just one crime was solved per thousand CCTV cameras in the capital.

The deficit was partly blamed on officers not being able to make the best use of the many thousands of hours of video generated by CCTV.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8293784.stm

 

[OneWingedBird]

The question is, can 2 friends hatch a plot whereby one of them commits a crime on a known CCTV camera and gets fined less than the other claims for flagging it up - then they can split the profits? :?

Makes one wonder too if the BNP will have a particular interest in this, as there isn't the capacity to check all of the footage from the cameras, there's nothing to stop someone sitting there and selectively reporting, say, black people

 

[JamesWhitehead]

BRF: "Makes one wonder too if the BNP will have a particular interest in this, as there isn't the capacity to check all of the footage from the cameras, there's nothing to stop someone sitting there and selectively reporting, say, black people."

Well at least it would keep the BNP off the streets.

 

[Nemo]

Riot training for army officers (video)

The question is how would riot training be useful in places like Afghanistan & Iraq?

Unless...the Army is being trained, to be used as back up for the Police in crowd control situations in Britain. :shock:

 

[Spookdaddy]

Riot control may be of limited use in a hot war zone like Helmand but many of the duties required of modern armies occupy a somewhat nebulous borderland (which is why many professional soldiers hate it) between traditional soldiering and policing.

Riot control training is relevant in Iraq and it's been relevant in places like Ulster and the Balkans. If you have to use soldiers in a police role it's better to have them trained in riot control methods - the alternative is that they fall back on their other training, which tends to involve lots of shooting. It's been going on in one form or another for a while - don't really see much of a conspiracy.

 

[rynner2]

Terror Act used on climate activist
By Beverley Rouse, Press Association
Thursday, 15 October 2009

Terror legislation was used to stop a British climate change activist from travelling to Denmark, it has emerged.

Chris Kitchen, 31, said he was prevented from crossing the border on Tuesday at about 5pm when the coach he was travelling on stopped at the Folkestone terminal of the Channel Tunnel.

Mr Kitchen told the Guardian that police officers boarded the coach and, after checking all passengers' passports, took him and another climate activist to be interviewed under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, a clause which enables border officials to stop and search individuals to determine if they are connected to terrorism.

He was asked what he intended to do in Copenhagen and also about his family, work and past political activity.

Mr Kitchen said he pointed out that anti-terrorist legislation did not apply to environmental activists but said the officer replied that terrorism "could mean a lot of things".

His coach had left by the time his 30-minute interview had finished and police paid for a ticket for him to return to London.

Mr Kitchen said he believed the officials knew his name and had planned to remove him before they boarded the coach as passports were not initially scanned.

"The use of anti-terrorist legislation like this is another example of political policing, of the government harassing and intimidating people practising their hard earned democratic rights," he told the Guardian.

"We are going to Copenhagen to take part in Climate Justice Action because we want to protest against false solutions like carbon trading and to build a global movement for effective, socially just solutions.

"People who are practising civil disobedience on climate change in the face of ineffectual government action are certainly not terrorists, and I am sure that their actions will be vindicated by history."

etc...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 03054.html

 

[OneWingedBird]

I can't see a specific thread for this, so it can go in here.

It's interesting that we're told that the images of adults it produces are not indecent or pornographic (even if it can see your breast implants ), but when it comes to children, um, they may be indecent and pornographic.

Child porn fears scupper airport ‘nude X-ray’ scans

Airport security chiefs have been banned from subjecting children to a controversial new X-ray scanner that produces ‘naked’ pictures of passengers because of legal warnings the images may break child pornography laws.

The full-body scanner, which can spot weapons and explosives hidden under clothing, was launched with great fanfare at Manchester Airport last week.

But now – with the system due to begin operating at full capacity at Manchester’s Terminal 2 next week – security chiefs have been told no one under 18 can be subjected to the new checks.

Child protection experts have warned that the image produced by the Rapiscan machines may break the law which prevents the creation of an indecent image or pseudo-image of a child.

The legislation, the Protection of Children Act 1978, could potentially have led to security officers facing criminal charges for doing their job by examining the images.

Airport bosses had originally intended to allow children to be scanned during the 12-month trial if their parents gave consent.

But they changed their minds after they were approached by the civil rights group Action on Rights for Children, which has campaigned against the use of body scanners on children.

The group argues the machines are disproportionately intrusive and remove a child’s right to dignity, particularly given that many youngsters are sensitive about their bodies.

Last night a Manchester Airport spokesman confirmed that all staff had been told not to allow children to be scanned by the new equipment. He said: ‘Our lawyers and child welfare groups have warned us this is a legal grey area.

‘We do not want to open ourselves or our staff to the possibility of legal action, so we have decided children will not be subjected to these scans and will continue to face normal security checks.’

The Department for Transport hoped the virtual strip-search device would provide the solution to long queues at security checkpoints at all airports.

The equipment means passengers are no longer required to remove their shoes and coats for security checks.


More...

* European airports will not get 'strip search' body scanners after MEPs refuse to support plans
* Airport passengers to have 'naked' photos taken by full-body X-ray machine

And it also does away with the need for physical ‘pat-down’ searches on those who trigger an alarm when they pass through traditional scanner arches because they have forgotten to hand over their keys or other metal objects.
A member of security staff would see a 'naked' front and back view of the passenger (left) and a computer graphic (right) which will highlight in red which areas of the passenger needs to be checked by fellow staff members

A member of security staff would see a 'naked' front and back view of the passenger (left) and a computer graphic (right) which will highlight in red which areas of the passenger needs to be checked by fellow staff members

The Rapiscan works by beaming electromagnetic waves on to passengers as they stand in a booth, creating a virtual three-dimensional black-and-white ‘naked’ image from the reflected energy and sending it to a computer monitor elsewhere in the airport where it is examined by a security officer.

The whole process takes only about 20 seconds and then the image is deleted.

But the scans show every contour of people’s bodies – even revealing breast implants – which some may find intrusive.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rrer=yahoo

 

[rynner2]

Outrage at government plan for secret inquests
Ministers vow to press ahead with controversial proposal despite Lords defeat
By Robert Verkaik, Home Affairs Editor
Thursday, 22 October 2009

Plans to introduce secret inquiries into controversial deaths from which the public and bereaved families could be banned are to be pushed through the House of Commons by the Government.

Last night ministers suffered a humiliating defeat for the proposals in the House of Lords, but insisted that they were "clear" that "harmful material" must not be made public, and would reintroduce the measures in the Commons.

The new powers would allow them to turn inquests like that of Jean Charles de Menezes or those involving the deaths of British soldiers into secret hearings.

Civil rights campaigners, peers and MPs attacked the Government for trying to sneak through an "abuse of power" which struck at the heart of Britain's ancient inquest system.

Baroness Miller, the Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokeswoman in the Lords, whose party tabled an amendment which succeeded in removing the secret inquiry clause, said that the Government had suffered a "self-inflicted" defeat.

She said: "Inquiries are a thing of the state and inquests are the thing of citizens. The Government could have come up with the correct conditions to guard against secrecy without setting up a parallel inquest system. It's not a good argument to say, 'But if you knew what we knew you wouldn't object.'"

The measure, buried in the Coroners and Justice Bill, gives the Lord Chancellor, currently Jack Straw, absolute discretion to order a secret inquiry in place of a public inquest. It could mean that inquests that might expose the negligence of government or a public body or embarrass ministers or foreign allies could be censored.

It comes less than six months after Mr Straw dropped proposals to hold sensitive inquests behind closed doors without juries from the Bill following widespread opposition. But the new plan has been quietly added to the Bill, in the shape of a provision allowing for an inquest to be suspended and a secret inquiry held in its place.

Liberty, the human rights group, said the illiberal powers would prevent bereaved families from discovering the truth about the death of a loved one.

etc...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 06867.html

 

[jeff544]

The Rapiscan works by beaming electromagnetic waves on to passengers as they stand in a booth, creating a virtual three-dimensional black-and-white ‘naked’ image from the reflected energy and sending it to a computer monitor elsewhere in the airport where it is examined by a security officer.

We need to know if the concentration of electromagnetic waves at this level are safe. I suspect it is stonger than the ambient variety of signals we are exposed to constantly from mobile phones, television, radio etc, but will probably never really be told the truth. We should be alarmed however, if the operator is wearing a lead apron.

 

[OneWingedBird]

So are over 40s turning to crime for frequently? Or perhaps, as it's suggested, there's simply more ways for them to break the law

Increase in middle-aged 'criminals'

The number of first-time criminal offenders in their 40s rose more than any other age group in a seven-year period, it has been revealed.

Government figures made public in a parliamentary answer showed the number of people aged 40 to 49 entering the justice system for the first time rose by 57.4% between 2000/01 and 2007/08.

The number of over 50s in the same position also rose by 46.3% in those seven years from 16,400 to 24,000.

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne, who obtained the figures, said the rise was driven by police targets.

He said: "The soaring number of people being criminalised is a direct result of Labour's target-driven, box-ticking approach to policing.

"When cautions for motoring offences and rubbish bin misdemeanours are worth the same as convictions for murder or rape, it is easy to see how we have slipped into mass criminalisation.

"Vast numbers of people are being dragged into the criminal justice system after this Government has created a new crime for every day in office.

"Labour has criminalised a generation and has treated tens of thousands of law-abiding middle-aged and elderly citizens like villains.

"The Liberal Democrats would scrap the Government's ridiculous targets and put more police on the streets to catch real criminals."

But the Home Office said police targets were set locally with public concerns in mind.

http://latestnews.virginmedia.com/news/ ... _criminals

 

[jeff544]

So are over 40s turning to crime for frequently? Or perhaps, as it's suggested, there's simply more ways for them to break the law

Increase in middle-aged 'criminals'

The number of first-time criminal offenders in their 40s rose more than any other age group in a seven-year period, it has been revealed.

Government figures made public in a parliamentary answer showed the number of people aged 40 to 49 entering the justice system for the first time rose by 57.4% between 2000/01 and 2007/08.

The number of over 50s in the same position also rose by 46.3% in those seven years from 16,400 to 24,000.

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne, who obtained the figures, said the rise was driven by police targets.

He said: "The soaring number of people being criminalised is a direct result of Labour's target-driven, box-ticking approach to policing.

"When cautions for motoring offences and rubbish bin misdemeanours are worth the same as convictions for murder or rape, it is easy to see how we have slipped into mass criminalisation.

"Vast numbers of people are being dragged into the criminal justice system after this Government has created a new crime for every day in office.

"Labour has criminalised a generation and has treated tens of thousands of law-abiding middle-aged and elderly citizens like villains.

"The Liberal Democrats would scrap the Government's ridiculous targets and put more police on the streets to catch real criminals."

But the Home Office said police targets were set locally with public concerns in mind.

http://latestnews.virginmedia.com/news/ ... _criminals

I saw this in the Daily mail today, too. By targeting and crimialising over 40's they are also selecting people most likely to have the will & resources to pay the fines. I am totally convinced that nowadays if you are a decent law abiding person in this country you had better watch out.
You try and get the police interested in sorting out a bunch of drunken toerags outside your house on a Friday night and see what happens.

 

[Stormkhan]

Well, it makes economic sense.

You target a group who can pay multiple, small sums and are less likely to appeal than most (many ordinary folk are either too embarrased "socially" to object or are ignorant of their right to appeal).

It's like giving a fine to someone who can't pay - or can only pay in negligible amounts per month - or banning someone from driving ... for driving without a licence; in theory a deterrent but only a deterrent in the eyes of those who make the law.

 

[rynner2]

Criminal record checks are turning us into a nation of suspects
Ignoring a child in distress used to be unheard of. But vetting by the new Independent Safeguarding Authority will mean every adult is a potential criminal – and children will be no safer
By Philip Johnston
Published: 7:00AM GMT 28 Oct 2009

Have you been ISA-cleared? If you want a new job then you had soon better be. According to Sir Roger Singleton, head of the Independent Safeguarding Authority (the aforementioned ISA), a clean bill of health from his fledgling organisation will become as important as a professional qualification for any aspiring employee. It will announce to the world that you are not a paedophile, that you have not assaulted a child and do not pose a danger to vulnerable old people. The state will have decreed that you are not a monster.

If you are coming around slowly to the view that this country is going mad then confirmation came yesterday with Sir Roger’s comments in this newspaper. It is now, apparently, considered perfectly reasonable to regard the entire adult population as a potential pool of criminal suspects. Indeed, new figures from the Justice Department show that an increasing number of people is being criminalised, principally the over-40s who have never been in trouble with the police and have never really done anything wrong apart from breaking the speed limit occasionally. The number of over-40s receiving a first conviction or caution has increased by half since 2001 and is now running at 65 a day. The figures reflect the fact that many of Labour’s new spot fines for ''crimes’’ such as overfilling a wheelie bin are aimed at householders.

As Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: ''Labour have criminalised a generation and treated tens of thousands of law-abiding middle-aged and elderly citizens like villains.’’ Since October 12, an estimated 11.3 million people have been subject to a new “vetting and barring” regime that means it is now a criminal offence, punishable by a £5,000 fine, for individuals without ISA clearance to work or apply to work with children or vulnerable adults in a wide range of posts – including most NHS jobs, the Prison Service, education and childcare. Most will have to pay £64 towards the cost of setting up the database. Employers also face criminal sanctions for knowingly employing a barred individual across a wider range of work. Although the scheme is now running, registration is being phased in and starts for new workers or for those moving jobs in July.

The ISA was set up in response to the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman by Ian Huntley in Soham in 2002, and employs about 200 staff with an annual budget of £40 million. Even though the Soham inquiry reserved much of its criticism for a failure to follow up Huntley’s references when he was applying for a job as a school caretaker, the Government decided that an all-embracing vetting agency was required.

A few weeks ago there was uproar when it became clear how far the tentacles of the new authority would extend. Even the NSPCC said it threatened “perfectly safe and normal activities” and risked alienating the public and discouraging volunteers. Other campaign groups and opposition parties denounced its scale and scope.

etc...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6448260 ... pects.html

 

[misterwibble]

That Daily Mail article contains some of the most pathetic whining ever.

"Labour has criminalised a generation and has treated tens of thousands of law-abiding middle-aged and elderly citizens like villains.

Er, no. They're not law abiding. The reason they're in the justice system is because they broke the law. It's very simple. Basically it's people complaining about being caught.

 

[Yithian]

 

[rynner2]

That Daily Mail article contains some of the most pathetic whining ever.

"Labour has criminalised a generation and has treated tens of thousands of law-abiding middle-aged and elderly citizens like villains.

Daily Mail bashing again, eh?

But the bit you quote is actually from the virginmedia piece given by BRF (and virginmedia got it from the PA).

And that quotation was actually from the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne, and was reported (or paraphrased) by most of the media.

As we've seen on the Stupid Rules thread, more people are being criminalised - the over 40s are not getting more criminal, the government keeps moving the goalposts.

 

[Dingo667]

That Daily Mail article contains some of the most pathetic whining ever.

"Labour has criminalised a generation and has treated tens of thousands of law-abiding middle-aged and elderly citizens like villains.

Er, no. They're not law abiding. The reason they're in the justice system is because they broke the law. It's very simple. Basically it's people complaining about being caught.

I saw this exact post on the DM message board

I also wrote an extensive answer back to this particular post and it went something like that:
" Yes they broke the law but for the only reason that it was a law in the first place. There are many laws that should not exist, petty, silly laws, designed to fit somebody's agenda, rather than protecting society. The anti cannabis law is such.
The basic laws should be that you musn't kill or harm anyone or steal others property. Then details are added and then more details until nobody would be able to live without braking a few a day. I read somewhere that every person in Britain breaks a couple of laws a day without knowing. If you get caught in such a situation, you'll find yourself criminalised without being actually a criminal.
I think that this is the reason people are getting fed up and sometimes use exaggerated language, because they are frustrated.

The worst people that give me the creeps are those that say "if you have nothing to hide..."
That's not the point. With a mind set like that, the gov could invent any law and someone would obey, disregarding the fact that their very freedom is being eroded. Which is what the majority doesn't fancy. Honestly. "

 

[rynner2]

Spying on us doesn't protect democracy. It undermines it
By branding protesters and mainstream Muslim activists as extremists, the police are effectively criminalising dissent
Seumas Milne guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 28 October 2009 21.30 GMT

There's nothing new about British governments spying on their own citizens. From the time of Elizabeth I's spy chief Francis Walsingham to the legendary agent provocateurs of the years after Waterloo to the bugging and blacklisting of the postwar decades, espionage against domestic dissenters has long been a staple of British statecraft. For most of the last century, the secret state targeted the left, trade unionists and peace campaigners, along with Irish republicans and anyone else regarded as a "subversive" threat.

That was all supposed to have been consigned to history after the end of the cold war, when MI5 declared it had abandoned counter-subversion and switched its focus to the threat of jihadist terror attacks. But, if anything, the apparatus of official snooping and spooking has grown even more inflated than in the days when the state faced a real political challenge from both within and without.

It's now not just the security service and police special branch that spy on environmental campaigners and anti-war protesters, but an array of police intelligence units set up to keep tabs on those designated "domestic extremists", including through covert informants and intercepts. And as the Guardian's reports of the past few days have shown, these outfits don't just monitor activists, they work hand in glove with private companies, using anti-harassment legislation and pre-charge bail conditions, to prevent them from continuing to demonstrate and protest.

What began with injunctions against violent animal rights activists has now reached the point where hundreds of non-violent protesters are banned from going near arms factories or power stations, travelling to particular areas or even communicating with each other – without being charged with any offence. Last year, protesters at an academy school in south London were banned by injunction from handing out leaflets or even speaking outside the premises.

The Association of Chief Police Officers, which runs the intelligence units, claims that they only target groups that break the law – for instance, by peacefully occupying a power plant or taking secondary industrial action – or operate "outside of the normal democratic process". In fact, Acpo is itself an unaccountable private body, while protests and demonstrations are of course an essential part of the democratic process.

"Domestic extremism" is the subversion of the new surveillance state, though without even the spurious definition the cold war term was given. And just as MI5 used to claim it never targeted peace organisations or trade unions but the subversives within them, so the police intelligence apparatus insists it's only interested in "extremists", not the groups they're part of.

The home secretary Alan Johnson this week sneered that if the police wanted to use the term "domestic extremism" he "certainly wouldn't fall to the floor clutching my box of Kleenex". But by blurring the lines between the civil and criminal law and publicly branding those who take part in demonstrations and direct action, the police and the Home Office are in effect criminalising political dissent.

etc...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... -democracy

 

[Stormkhan]

Hang on.

Criminalising dissent?

In theory, democracy allows dissent but - as far as I know - most political states already have laws against dissent against The State. Thus, dissent, or more accurately disagreement with The State is allowed ... but you'll be considered to be a threat to society if you actively use this right.

The real, honest limit is the law concerning how a citizen acts on their dissent with the government. If you act within the right of honest protest then fine. If you decide that your protest requires illegal action then you face The Law. The current problem is the interpretation of both ideas and the constant change of legislation regarding what is "allowable" dissent.

To quote The Alcade in Zorro The Gay Blade:

"She is right! She has the right to address the people in the marketplace. Just arrest anyone who is listening to her!"

 

[Quake42]

There are many laws that should not exist, petty, silly laws, designed to fit somebody's agenda, rather than protecting society. The anti cannabis law is such.

I agree, but the drugs laws are hardly new or the fault of New Labour.

I'd be interested to see the detailed breakdown of these "newly criminalised" over 40s. How many have actually been convicted of newly created offences? Is it not more credible that their generation grew up in more liberal times than their parents, committed more crimes when they were young, and that some of them just never grew out of it?

 

[Twin_Star]

Apologies if this is already on another thread...

So now we have powers brought in - supposedly - to seize the assets of cartel kingpins, international terrorists and board-room brigands used against their true targets; council tax dodgers, traffic fine evaders, dog shit non-picker-uppers etc. and the best bit? the oafish thugs coming through a door near you wont be plod, but the common or garden debt recovery *specialists* and bailiffs.

yes, i know a "spokesperson" has denied they will be used for council tax arrears etc but really, who's kidding who here?

The whole depressing, tawdry, shameful article in full at the beeb:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8329583.stm