Jump to content

Police state or the state of policing


tonyh29
 Share

Recommended Posts

Where's the problem?

Where's the problem that anyone's movements are under surveillance as though they were criminals?

Where's the problem that legislation that was passed through parliament for the purposes of tackling serious crime is being used 'willy nilly' (with retrospective 'auditing') for surveillance of any citizen deemed watchable by some council civil servant?

Of course it ought to be proportionate. All 'powers' given to anyone ought to be proportionate.

Is RIPA the best line of defence against dogshit? If it is then we, society and the whole of our existence is lost, lost, lost.

If there ought to be carte blanche given to the surveillance of everyone with retrospective analysis as to whether it was OK 'audit wise', then our society deserves to be wiped out as a shallow, thoughtless, undignified, invasive, disgusting waste of oxygen.

Quite a rant!

I think you have missed the point! Utopian society will not be found in our life time!

RIPA is not a power given to civil servants. It is a "set of handcuffs" controlling what was done prior to RIPA. It is actually assisting in the prevention of "willy nilly" surveillance. There will be some examples we all don't agree with. There will be thousands that I would agree with and some that 99% of the civilised world will agree with. (Don't take that the wrong way and think I'm suggesting you are not!)

I agree the legislation is quite correct for proper security services. So that's dealt with 90% of rant!

Just on the doggy doo side of things though......

Local Chav man and bull mastif go to the park and leave doggy doo for you to stand in. I know how to deal with this..... a sign saying you will be fined will do!

If the scary little sign is ignored.......

Bollocks - Chav man has won because yes these parts of our society deserves to be wiped out as a shallow, thoughtless, undignified, invasive, disgusting waste of oxygen

But.......

Never mind because......oh no, we can't catch the Chav man because

Where's the problem that anyone's movements are under surveillance as though they were criminals?
...... maybe not a crime per sais but this anti-social chavvery is the blight of our society. (And hence proportionate actions by the said council? Just a different perspective on the word proportionate).

There is no room for practical work to be done now. The Chav man is hardly going to have anyone give evidence against him on behalf of the council. Surveillance isn't proportionate.

Rather the council tried than never even bothered. I feel sorry for the people who tried to stop the behaviour because sensationalist reporting suddenly turns the lefty council employee into the Orwellian nightmare!

In principle I agree with your views on the over used monitoring of lives for no apparent good and/ or reason under the umbrella of "terrorism". (Conspiracy theory - All seeing eye - New World Order {see previous posts of mine})

In the metaphorical "handcuffing" of councils to try and make the lives of the majority better. I cannot agree with you.

Trying to word this so as not to offend! :winkold:

And the "grim RIPA" quote - because fluffy chats with Chav man will not work. Legal aided solicitor/ barrister will make sure "evidence" is required before Chav man has anything to worry about. And where will the evidence come from. Unforunatley, that's right..... our friend the video/ cctv, therefore surveillance. (Unless you want to DNA the dog and doggy doo?!)

We are a long way from communities pulling together. Sorry Snowychap - utopia is an unattainable state. IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are a long way from communities pulling together. Sorry Snowychap - utopia is an unattainable state. IMO.

I'd also prefer not to drift into the distopia for which you yearn.

RIPA is not a set of handcuffs controlling and auditing what was done prior to its enactment.

Prior to RIPA, this kind of behaviour would have been unlawful.

RIPA does give powers to 'civil servants'. Those employed by councils are given authoriy to stalk people, intrude into their lives above and beyond what is reasonable, &c.

To have councils behaving as offshoots of the Stasi is beyond the pale.

But as long as you don't have dogshit in a park and your bête noire - Mr Chav - is watched over then that's fine.

Anti-social chavvery is not the blight of our society - the blight of our society is the seemingly never ending bad legislation churned out with such regularity over the last 8/9 years.

The functionality creep which sees anti-terrorism laws used against people at public meetings;serious and organised crime act being used to excort three coaches of protestors back down the M4 to London; the appalling construction of legislation that sees laws having to be rewritten every few years or the even worse construction which sees the legality of legislation shown up in court.

I think you have missed the point! Utopian society will not be found in our life time!

Without striving for an ideal we won't improve the lot we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

So when we catch the chav man who isn't cleaning up his dogs shit, does he pay his £60 fine at a pound a week or does he opt for 20 hours community service, which he wont attend because he will have a legitimate excuse that if he doesn't walk his dog it would be classed as animal cruelty.

Meanwhile some scrote who works for the council in the CCTV room has his camera trained on some poor female in her bedroom getting undressed to go to bed (on a regular basis)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naughty post Snowychap.

Never yearned for distopia.

Surveillance was not unlawful prior to Ripa. There was no Ripa when plod followed burglars 20 years ago in plain clothes! That was not unlawful! Phone taps never lawful prior to RIPA?!

Your post then disintegrated into a second rant of anti terrorism blah. Read my post we are agreed in principle there. No need for further rant.

Worcestershire is not inner city B'ham. We have very different experiences. Your Chav will be slightly less of a blight than some I encounter! Maybe this is our difference in opinion? Unfortunately Bicks' 1st point is also a concern. And the second! (Bad eggs both sides of the fence.)

But striving to make lives better for the majority and supporting pro-active intervention has me

Without striving for an ideal we won't improve the lot we have

Again naughty.

I respect differing views. I know mine are set. But I think a modicum of respect should be afforded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never yearned for distopia.

Ok: the dystopic expedience which you advocated.

Surveillance was not unlawful prior to Ripa. There was no Ripa when plod followed burglars 20 years ago in plain clothes! That was not unlawful! Phone taps never lawful prior to RIPA?!

Covert surveillance by those who were not police, secret services or Mr Taxman (or those other select few bodies entrusted specifically with dealing with serious criminal behaviour) was unlwaful. Interception of communications by those not described was unlawful.

In fact agencies other than these were not part of RIPA originally. Now, it is open season for all and sundry from the food standards agency to VOSA to councils, &c.

Your post then disintegrated into a second rant of anti terrorism blah.

I mentioned anti-terrorism as one example. Otherwise, it was about inadequate and ill-formulated laws made by poor lawmakers which are open to abuse (not unintentionally, I fear).

But striving to make lives better for the majority and supporting pro-active intervention has me

Without striving for an ideal we won't improve the lot we have

No.

I think you have missed the point! Utopian society will not be found in our life time!

is what brought about my comment about striving for an ideal..

I respect differing views. I know mine are set. But I think a modicum of respect should be afforded.

I will afford respect to people with differing views and therefore I do to you. I must be sincere in stating that I cannot afford that same respect to the point of view which you propounded, a point of view which I consider hits at the heart of our nation.

It is not about being proactive.

It is about suspicion. It is about making everyone into a potential (nay probable) suspect and criminal (often with a reversal of the burden of proof). It is about fear. And it's the best kind of fear, too. It's the fear that is on everyone's side, making the world a better place for us all - until the time when it isn't on our side. When we become the object of that fear, it is too late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last paragraph is a fair wayto put your views.

We will differ. My views are the destruction of modern day society and normal morals have been taken to an extreme by left wing liberalism.

So yes I am more right wing. Police state is your fear. Lack of is mine!

The RIPA usage is being reviewed. I suspect nothing more than advice from those investigating.

Unfortunately I also expected this

So yes I believe we have a broken society. Bugger eh?!

I suspect I am wrong. And I suspect you are too! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also believe we have a broken society.

The reasons for this and the methods by which we seek to address the problems are things on which it appears we will not concur. :winkold:

I suspect I am wrong. And I suspect you are too!

I believe that is both an unfortunate and honourable position to take and I will join you there. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Councils warned over spying laws

Councils in England have been urged to review the way they use surveillance powers to investigate suspected crime.

Under laws brought in to help fight terrorism, councils can access phone and e-mail records and use surveillance to detect or stop a criminal offence.

But Local Government Association chairman Sir Simon Milton has written to councils warning overzealous use of the powers could alienate the public.

They should not be used for "trivial offences" such as dog fouling, he adds.

Concerns have been raised about the way some councils have used the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

Recent examples include a family in Dorset followed for several weeks to see if they really did live in a school catchment area.

Other uses have included examining rubbish to monitor household waste.

In his letter, Sir Simon said: "Parliament clearly intended that councils should use the new powers, and generally they are being used to respond to residents' complaints about fly tippers, rogue traders and those defrauding the council tax or housing benefit system."

Sir Simon identifies dog fouling and littering as examples of two offences in which the act's powers were not "necessary and proportionate".

.,...more on link

Link to LGA website and copy of letter sent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Beat me to it Snowy. You can all sleep safe in your beds safe in the knowledge that the terrorist dogs wont be fouling the path anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once upon a time, in 2002 the zaNu Labour govt realised they were struggling to justify the extraordinary mass surveillance policies that they were trying to force through parliament and adopted another approach.

In a dramatic climb-down, the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, said he would shelve controversial new proposals to allow a wide range of public bodies to snoop on people's email, internet surfing activity and phone calls without the need of a court order.

"I recognise there is widespread concern about the current proposals to regulate how public bodies can access phone and internet records," he said, adding that much wider public debate was needed in order to proceed.

So they went off to europe and told them how the war on fear could not proceed unless the govt and it's forces could have access to personal information. And so EU enacted an act forcing member countries to implement levels of monitoring and data capture.

This was posted last year and of course greeted with the usual disdain, and yet it has come to pass that the rights secured by for the war on fear were to be abused.

On Monday new regulations came into force, after a personal decree by the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, that give nearly 800 public bodies the right to access your telephone records - mobile phone and landline - and make it compulsory for all phone companies to keep those records. So the data of your calls and text messages may be accessed by any damned busybody in any agency stretching from the Scottish Ambulance Service Board, the Food Standards Agency, the Environment Agency to every local council in the country. Naturally, the intelligence services and police are provided with the usual easy pass into your private life.

This was all slipped through our comatose Parliament during the summer when Smith knew people were thinking about their holidays and the electorate was enjoying some kind of post-coital swoon with its new Prime Minister.

So the forces of fear got their act and managed to bypass parliament as well. Democracy wins again. And not only did jacqui merely do her job by bringing into law a EU edict (sponsored and proposed by the UK), but she did it faster than any other of the member countries and extended it's powers much further than the edict itself required.

Who said nu labour were slow to act and inefficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article

Councils warned over spying laws

In general councils were not abusing their powers, Sir Simon Milton said

Councils in England have been urged to review the way they use surveillance powers to investigate suspected crime.

Under laws brought in to help fight terrorism, councils can access phone and e-mail records and use surveillance to detect or stop a criminal offence.

But Local Government Association chairman Sir Simon Milton has written to councils warning overzealous use of the powers could alienate the public.

They should not be used for "trivial offences" such as dog fouling, he adds.

Concerns have been raised about the way some councils have used the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

Recent examples include a family in Dorset followed for several weeks to see if they really did live in a school catchment area.

Other uses have included examining rubbish to monitor household waste.

In his letter, Sir Simon said: "Parliament clearly intended that councils should use the new powers, and generally they are being used to respond to residents' complaints about fly tippers, rogue traders and those defrauding the council tax or housing benefit system."

Sir Simon identifies dog fouling and littering as examples of two offences in which the act's powers were not "necessary and proportionate".

'Public concern'

Wyre Council in Lancashire has used hidden cameras to catch people who let their dogs foul public places - an action the chief executive Jim Corey said had drawn praise from local people.

"Dog fouling is at the top of their list in terms of issues they want the council to be tackling on the ground, so I know the public are only too pleased to see us catching people," he told BBC Radio 5 Live.

But Sir Simon urged councils to use the powers only for complaints about more serious matters.

He told BBC Breakfast: "I don't think councils are abusing their powers, but there have been one or two instances... where it could be said that perhaps some of the offences being investigated were too trivial to be using surveillance techniques."

He said councils could lose the right to employ surveillance if the act was misused, and suggested that every authority should carry out an annual review to gauge public opinion on the issue.

'Change the law'

Figures released by councils under the Freedom of Information Act show that thousands of people have had their telephone and e-mail records accessed.

Spy law 'used to fight dog fouling'

It is estimated that about 3,000 people have been targeted in the last year, for alleged offences that included dog smuggling, storing petrol without permission and keeping unburied animal carcasses.

A survey of fewer than 10% of councils, carried out by the Press Association, showed that spying techniques were used 1,343 times.

Civil rights group Liberty welcomed the new advice but said it wanted the government to reform the law, so that only a judge - not a town hall official - could authorise use of the most intrusive powers.

Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti said: "This is about using quite serious powers that are meant for crime, not minor matters."

Conservative local government secretary Eric Pickles said: "We need stronger checks and balances against the potential abuse of such powers to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens from Labour's growing surveillance state."

Dr David Mukarami Wood, from Newcastle University, said surveillance was becoming "normalised" in everyday life.

"I think this is quite dangerous," he said. "We've gone from a situation where surveillance was exceptional a few years ago to a situation where it's now considered to be a normal part of what any public authority, or even private organisations, are doing."

I think e-mail and phone records should not be available to Councils. More collateral intrusion.

Normal surveillance - I ain't got a problem if used right. And if you read the above normal surveillance isn't the overall gripe.

The bold above details why Sir Simon is wrong. He says not necessary or proportionate. Yet the council are saying it's the MOST important thing for residents. Sir Simon is out for a sound bite and you are all feeding!

Never thought I'd say this mind, Shami Chakrabarti has got straight to the crux of the matter in respect to mobile phone and e-mail stuff, and she's right!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Police and government disinformation

Those Kingsnorth police injuries in full: six insect bites and a toothache

• Kent force admits no officers hurt by protests

• £5.9m police operation 'colossal waste of money'

When climate camp protesters descended on the site of the Kingsnorth power station for a week-long summer demonstration, the scale of the police operation to cope with them was enormous.

Police were accused of using aggressive tactics, confiscating everything from toilet rolls and board games to generators and hammers. But ministers justified what they called the "proportionate" £5.9m cost of the operation, pointing out that 70 officers had been injured in the course of their duties.

But data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act puts a rather different slant on the nature of those injuries, disclosing that not one was sustained in clashes with demonstrators.

Papers acquired by the Liberal Democrats via Freedom of Information requests show that the 1,500 officers policing the Kingsnorth climate camp near the Medway estuary in Kent, suffered only 12 reportable injuries during the protest during August.

The Home Office has now admitted that the protesters had not been responsible for any injuries. In a three-line written answer to a parliamentary question, the Home Office minister Vernon Coaker wrote to the Lib Dem justice spokesman, David Howarth, saying: "Kent police have informed the Home Office that there were no recorded injuries sustained as a result of direct contact with the protesters."

Only four of the 12 reportable injuries involved any contact with protesters at all and all were at the lowest level of seriousness with no further action taken.

The other injuries reported included "stung on finger by possible wasp"; "officer injured sitting in car"; and "officer succumbed to sun and heat". One officer cut his arm on a fence when climbing over it, another cut his finger while mending a car, and one "used leg to open door and next day had pain in lower back".

A separate breakdown of the 33 patients treated by the police tactical medicine unit at the climate camp shows that three officers had succumbed to heat exhaustion, three had toothache, six were bitten by insects, and others had diarrhoea, had cut their finger or had headaches.

.....

"I hope the government and the police will now stop trying to portray peaceful protesters as somehow equivalent to terrorists or violent extremists. In light of this new evidence, one has to ask, were climate campers so heavily policed because they posed any genuine threat of violence, or because they posed a challenge to government policy?"

Nick Thorpe, a spokesman for the climate camp, said: "Policing of peaceful protest has become increasingly heavy-handed. We saw thousands of officers swarming around a legal camp in a colossal waste of public money. The police and the government claimed there was a 'violent minority' of protesters but this Home Office admission reveals this as a complete fiction."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I hope the government and the police will now stop trying to portray peaceful protesters as somehow equivalent to terrorists or violent extremists.
Bob's dead and Slim's out of town.

maybe Powell is available ......? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

exclamation-mark-man-user-icon-with-png-and-vector-format-227727.png

Ad Blocker Detected

This site is paid for by ad revenue, please disable your ad blocking software for the site.

Â