Police state or the state of policing

[Awol]

I have to laugh sometimes at the comments on here.

On one hand it is wrong to believe a government and the whole security infrastructure and the messages they give out but on the other hand a newspaper is treated as the gospel and 110% accurate without bias etc. The writers of articles and how they "interpret" comments made in the real world are seen as some sort of gospel writers.

It explains so much

So another Head of MI5 being 'misquoted' again about the creation of a police state? I'm afraid your poor attempt at spin makes me laugh Ian.

[PB]

I think its natural and proper for the police to push for stronger powers. With stronger powers they are better able to fulfil their function within society of preventing and detecting crime and generally maintaining law and order

I think the 'people' are correct to resist such pushes from the police, as any increase in police powers sees a loss of personal freedom

It is the job of government to make sure that balance is met correctly

[snowychap]

^ The amount of people in the know that keep warning of a police state in the UK keeps on growing but enforcing more and more state control seems to be hard wired into Labour's DNA.

Read in the paper this morning that under the new counter terror laws you can arrested for photographing a policeman, that's another potential check on their behaviour removed. But we are just paranoid conspiracy theorists Gringo...

It is now an offence to elicit, publish or communicate information about current or former members of the forces, the intelligence services or the police which is of a kind 'likely to be useful' to someone preparing or committing an act of terrorism.

The police have said that only in the most extreme case would one be arrested (and that it's not intended to be a clampdown on photographers or journalists) but we've heard all that before.

Oh, there is a defence (to prove that one had a reasonable excuse) but it's probably a bit late by then and I doubt it's a 'defence' which is going to work with plod on the street.

More loosely framed and loosely worded law that puts the burden of responsibility on the accused.

Here is the relevant section of the Act (Section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act which came into force yesterday):

76 Offences relating to information about members of armed forces etc (1) After section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (collection of information) insert—

“58A Eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of armed forces etc (1) A person commits an offence who—

(a) elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been—

(i) a member of Her Majesty’s forces,

(ii) a member of any of the intelligence services, or

(iii) a constable,

which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or

( publishes or communicates any such information.

(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine, or to both;

( on summary conviction—

(i) in England and Wales or Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;

(ii) in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.

(4) In this section “the intelligence services” means the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ (within the meaning of section 3 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 (c. 13)).

(5) Schedule 8A to this Act contains supplementary provisions relating to the offence under this section.”.

(2) In the application of section 58A in England and Wales in relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) the reference in subsection (3)((i) to 12 months is to be read as a reference to 6 months.

(3) In section 118 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) (defences), in subsection (5)(a) after “58,” insert “58A,”.

(4) After Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 insert the Schedule set out in Schedule 8 to this Act.

[snowychap]

On-the-spot points for careless driving

Thousands more motorists will lose their licences under plans to give police the power to issue penalty points for careless driving without evidence being heard in court.

Police will be much less likely to give verbal warnings and will instead issue fixed-penalty notices for minor offences such as failing to signal, passing too close to a cyclist or not displaying lights at night. Drivers will pay an automatic £60 fine and have three penalty points added to their licences.

More than a million motorists have six or more points on their licences. Anyone who receives 12 points within three years is banned for six months. In 2006, 26,400 drivers were banned for “totting up” 12 points.

Road safety groups are concerned that the new power will fuel suspicion among drivers that police are acting unfairly and that fines are being issued to raise revenue.

Unlike existing fixed-penalty offences, such as speeding and using a hand-held mobile phone at the wheel, the evidence for careless driving is much less clear-cut and is often a matter of the officer’s opinion.

At present police must take drivers to court if they want to prosecute them for careless driving. This is a time-consuming process involving large amounts of paperwork and officers rarely bother to prosecute, preferring to pull motorists over and give them a warning.

The Government believes that allowing police to issue fixed penalties for careless driving will make roads safer because motorists will know that they are more likely to be punished.

Drivers will be able to insist that their case is heard in court but most will accept the fixed penalties because the court punishment could be much greater: up to nine points and a maximum fine of £5,000.

A Department for Transport consultation paper says that there is evidence that police are not charging drivers with careless driving because of the heavy burden of paperwork. “This would suggest that there are careless drivers who are currently ‘getting away with it’, an idea that is supported by the steady downward trend in the prosecution of careless driving.”

The number of convictions for careless or dangerous driving has fallen by 77 per cent from 125,000 in 1985 to 29,000 in 2006. Previous experience suggests that police are likely to make extensive use of the new fixed penalty. The number of fines for using a hand-held mobile phone at the wheel trebled after it became a fixed-penalty offence in 2003.

Robert Gifford, the director of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, said: “There is a concern this would lead to bad feelings between police and drivers. A careless driving fixed penalty will be a matter of judgment by the officer and drivers may feel they are being picked on.

“To move careless driving into the fixed-penalty offence regime suggests a significant change in legal process that should be the subject of parliamentary debate. However, on balance we agree in principle with the proposal because it will reduce police paperwork.”

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents also expressed reservations, while accepting the principle of the fixed-penalty notice. It said that several members of its road safety committee were “concerned about the subjectivity in deciding what constitutes careless driving”.

The Association of Chief Police Officers welcomed the move. A spokesman said: “We see it as a way of reducing the time involved in processing cases. We believe strongly in education and, where appropriate, would make use of driver-improvement schemes as an alternative to fines and penalty points.”

Address the paperwork issue. Make it a less onerous process to take these drivers to court. Stop turning the police into Judges.

[Gringo]

Licence to spy on drinkers

The police are forcing publicans to install CCTV before approving their licences

On Monday the Guardian carried a letter from Nick Gibson who told how he had taken over a pub in Islington, London, and had to apply for a new licence, which required the approval of a number of organisations, including the police.

.....

Perhaps there should be a V for Vendetta evening at the Drapers Arms. If Gibson would like to suggest a date in the next two weeks, I will publicise it.

In the meantime, it is important that the police understand it is not their business to use their influence to make and implement policy affecting people's privacy.

This one seems to be picking up a bit of steam

Mandatory CCTV Cameras In Pubs

So where does this leave us? Islington and Richmond borough councils are enforcing a blanket policy on anyone applying for a licence to sell alcohol, so drinkers there have no escape. Essex police want CCTV cameras on every licenced premises open after 11pm. We know cameras are already up on many pubs and bars, but police and councils are taking away our right to choose. By the way, anyone know how legal this V for Vendetta mask idea is?

Buying some wine? Spy cameras will be watching

Big Brother CCTV cameras are to be fitted inside shops and supermarkets on the orders of the state to keep track on anybody buying alcohol.

A law is being quietly pushed through Parliament giving councils the power to order licensed premises to fit the surveillance cameras. Pubs will also be covered.

The footage of people innocently buying a bottle of wine in a shop or a pint of beer in a bar must be stored for at least 60 days, and be handed over to the police on demand.

.....

The measures form part of the Policing and Crime Bill, but have not been highlighted by Ministers.

Under a code of conduct, which will be enforced by the Bill, any business that intends to sell alcohol will have to agree to install the cameras.

Phil Booth, of the NO2ID privacy campaign, said: ‘We are already a country with more CCTV cameras than anywhere else in the civilised world, but this law is systemising the surveillance of a nation. People will be treated like suspects wherever they go.’

James Brokenshire, a Tory home affairs spokesman, said: ‘The risk is that these provisions could be used as a way to impose blanket CCTV requirements where they just aren’t necessary. This mustn’t be another way of extending the surveillance society by the back door.’

....

Home Office Minister Alan Campbell, who is piloting the CCTV measure through the Commons, recently admitted that he couldn’t remember the last time he was in a pub.

....

The Home Office said the clause in the Bill was intended to allow police and councils to target premises where problems were occurring, such as underage sales.

It was not meant to penalise businesses that act responsibly. It will be up to councils to decide which premises must have cameras, and they will be trained on the areas where alcohol is sold.

[drat01]

the Bill was intended to allow police and councils to target premises where problems were occurring, such as underage sales.

It will be up to councils to decide which premises must have cameras,

is apparently in Daily Mail speak (and to those that hang of it's every word) the same as

Spy cameras will be watching. Big Brother CCTV cameras are to be fitted inside shops and supermarkets on the orders of the state to keep track on anybody buying alcohol.

Hmmm shame that it isn't but hey let's not stop this conspiracy - you never know a movie may be made out of it ........

[Gringo]

the Bill was intended

The road to hell is paved with good intentions (and poorly drafted law, which allows the home secretary to frame these requirements as mandatory conditions for all licensed premises using those dodgy statutory instruments permitted under the abolition of parliament act which where only ever, ever (promise) to be used to tidy up old legislation and never ever to try and squeeze in slightly controversial amendments such as the one last month to exempt MPs expenses from the FOI act).

[Awol]

the Bill was intended

The road to hell is paved with good intentions (and poorly drafted law, which allows the home secretary to frame these requirements as mandatory conditions for all licensed premises using those dodgy statutory instruments permitted under the abolition of parliament act which where only ever, ever (promise) to be used to tidy up old legislation and never ever to try and squeeze in slightly controversial amendments such as the one last month to exempt MPs expenses from the FOI act).

Owned.

[drat01]

Owned? In what way?

What a strange comment.

The Daily Mail, a paper that the right wing element seem to love despite its track record, try and make 2+2 = 45658809 asylum seekers and nasty Gvmt, and that in some way "owns" me?

The conspiracy theorists need new dry pants me thinks

[drat01]

James Brokenshire, a Tory home affairs spokesman, said: ‘The risk is that these provisions could be used as a way to impose blanket CCTV requirements where they just aren’t necessary. This mustn’t be another way of extending the surveillance society by the back door.’

It is understood that a blanket policy has already been introduced in the London boroughs of Islington and Richmond

Richmond is a Lib Dem / Tory council, in London? London is a Tory run area? Boris has a lot of "powers" over the police?

Is this being "owned"?

[drat01]

Maybe CCTV in licensed establishments that have a bad history is needed?

Pub is shut down after underage Bebo boasts - A pub was shut by police after underage drinkers posted photos of themselves drinking there on the social networking site Bebo. ....Pub owner Punch Taverns revealed the premises would reopen on February 28 with a new landlord and improved CCTV and door security.

'Our priority is to ensure our pubs provide a safe and controlled environment for responsible adults,' a spokesman said.

Underage pub now to get CCTV to help them stop breaking law

Teenager fractured man's jaw....A SCARBOROUGH teenager fractured a man's jaw following a row with door staff outside a pub on Boxing Day, a court heard..... The court was shown CCTV footage of the incident.

CCTV helps convict a thug in a pub

Underage boozers pub shut....A pub has been shut down after police spotted teenagers bragging about boozing in the bar on an Internet site....Police said late-night lock-ins and a series of violent attacks – which included a man assaulted with a baseball bat – had also led to the closure....In September, police seized CCTV footage showing curtains closed and drinks being served at 1.10am.

Underage drinkers - violent caught by CCTV

'Attacked for using pub toilet'....A BARMAN kicked a defenceless vagrant in the head after throwing out his victim for using a pub toilet as a washroom, a court heard....CCTV footage of McRae kicking Mr Rimkus as he lay prone on the pavement was shown to jurors.

CCTV used to show thug barman

Ex-Northampton soldier is banned from every pub in UK....An ex-soldier who went on a drink and drug-fuelled rampage in Northampton, punching a woman police officer, has been banned from all pubs, bars and nightclubs in the UK....Grant Keyes, prosecuting, said CCTV cameras caught Harris as he stormed around

ex-squaddie thug caught by CCTV

etc etc etc

Is this being "owned"?

[snowychap]

Under a code of conduct, which will be enforced by the Bill, any business that intends to sell alcohol will have to agree to install the cameras.

The code of conduct being referred to is, I think, the Social Responsibility Standards for the Production and Sale of Alcoholic Drinks in the UK code.

Which contains the following about the off-trade:

7.6 Siting of alcohol in the store

7.6.1 Wherever possible the areas where alcohol is displayed should be covered by CCTV.

I'm not sure that anyone applying for a licence will be able to get away with 'it isn't possible, guv'.

Might be interesting to see what happens when the bill gets to the third reading (it's currently in committee stage).

[drat01]

Under a code of conduct, which will be enforced by the Bill, any business that intends to sell alcohol will have to agree to install the cameras.

Todd Carty?

[Gringo]

Hmmm shame that it isn't but hey let's not stop this conspiracy - you never know a movie may be made out of it ........

Maybe CCTV in licensed establishments that have a bad history is needed? Underage pub now to get CCTV to help them stop breaking law

CCTV helps convict a thug in a pub

Underage drinkers - violent caught by CCTV

CCTV used to show thug barman

So we went from mad conspiracy theory to required legislation in one go.

Of course the the disparity between the first is that the govt will propose mandatory cctv in all pubs, and the argument used to support it is that maybe cctv is need in some troublesome pubs.

Richmond is a Lib Dem / Tory council, in London? London is a Tory run area? Boris has a lot of "powers" over the police?

Wow - tories being in support of crap legislation. Nothing new there then. They've helped out the right wing leadership when the left wing back benchers have 'rebelled' (ie stand up for their own views) in the past.

[Awol]

What Gringo said is absolutely spot on, but you keep on voting for the western equivalent of the Stasi Ian, fortunately it no longer matters now that the British public have woken up to what lying bellends the Labour party really are.

Only fifteen years or so until you can start blaming Maggie again...

[drat01]

Sorry Jon but that is rubbish. The "stasi" comments just cheapen any sort of argument you have

What is being proposed here is right. For establishments that are selling alcohol that have a track record of being places where the law is broken, CCTV is proven to help bring the culprits to court and prosecuted accordingly. The fact that two areas of London, and again I will remind you who run's London and one of the areas has NO labour councillors, they have chosen to say that ALL have to have CCTV. That is a local decision

The Heil is just doing it's usual trick of reporting half a story and adding a scary element, which you have apparently taken in fully.

CCTV isn't the problem, it's the dicks who can't react to drinking and the dicks who sell booze to people who shouldn't be having it

[drat01]

Wow - tories being in support of crap legislation. Nothing new there then. They've helped out the right wing leadership when the left wing back benchers have 'rebelled' (ie stand up for their own views) in the past.

So Jon how exactly is Gringo spot on and then you make comments about the Labour party.

Is this "owned" or whatever you were saying previously?

[drat01]

So we went from mad conspiracy theory to required legislation in one go.

Not at all - and a good twisting of the argument.

Your conspiracy theory is one of a big brother state. The reality is simple, CCTV aids people to be brought to justice when laws have been broken etc and in cases quoted it has shown that. If the licensing authorities and the police feel that CCTV will avoid or cut down crime then what is your problem?

Of course the the disparity between the first is that the govt will propose mandatory cctv in all pubs, and the argument used to support it is that maybe cctv is need in some troublesome pubs.

So has mandatory CCTV been proposed? Or is that again part of the conspiracy?

Crime is high surrounding pubs, its a fact. Should CCTV be allowed in football grounds and the surrounding areas? The past has shown that these are areas where crimes were committed with violence etc, and the CCTV has helped cut down these, not eradicated, but cut down and when crimes do happen, as per at Pompey Spurs earlier, the culprits are identified and brought to justice

The Big Brother argument is just a play, you know as a IT person that what some of the newspapers say just could not happen in the real world - mass databases covering every move, email etc. The Heil plays on fears like this not because it feels any sort of moral indignation, but more to enforce its very right wing (and consequently anti-gvmt) views. The scary bit is that people start to believe all of this and it soon becomes "fact".

[Awol]

Sorry Jon but that is rubbish. The "stasi" comments just cheapen any sort of argument you have

No Ian, just because you say it 'cheapens' an arguement doesn't mean it isn't a point of view that millions are now recognising. Lets face it, the party you support are anti civil liberties, anti democracy, basically the worst government this country has had in living memory. I don't expect you to admit that but to be honest it doesn't matter, Labour are ****, utterly, absolutely and not before time. Let's just hope that the new Government take the idea that an Englishman by definition is a free man, more seriously than the current control obsessed Stalinist fuckwits.

I suggest you read Matthew Parris in the Times today because he puts it rather well. Your lot are now fundamentally irrelevant, all that remains to be seen is how much damage Labour will be able to inflict before they are **** off.

PS. I bet you're well proud of Jacqui Smith, the only Villa fan I'dlike to see shot in the face, sleazy clearing in the woods that she is.

Hot tip: Blame the house of lords

[Gringo]

Sorry Jon but that is rubbish. The "stasi" comments just cheapen any sort of argument you have

What is being proposed here is right.

How does this work with your previous comment that this is all a mad conspiracy theory?

The legislation allows mandatory legislation across all license holders. Stasi is right.

The Heil as you state are merely pointing out that the right wing labour govt are implementing right wing policies that even they would object to.

Isn't it time to sit up and think when you are so far right of the daily mail that you may have left the labour agenda along time ago. I for one can think of no time labour party member I know that would condone this continuous intrusion into public life.

The balirites have given the etonites the crown. It is ultimately then to blame when the walls fall down.