Is the UK Really a police state?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=72863
Printed Date: February 23 2025 at 09:48
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Is the UK Really a police state?
Posted By: JJLehto
Subject: Is the UK Really a police state?
Date Posted: November 02 2010 at 21:35
|
This is obviously directed to people living in the UK, (or anyone that has spent time living there I suppose) but of course anyone is free to participate. All this political hoopla going on right now jogged my memory of this question: Is the UK really a police state? I've always heard this, and dismissed as people just being "alternative" or "yeah we all hate the government" or people just talking without really having any clue. But I have heard stuff like there is a national police force, curfews and jazz like that. So, to those who would know. Do you honestly think the UK is a police state? And I'm being serious. If you think it is one explain why, and to what degree? Police State is not just a term to be thrown around to bash the political system, a police state is a very serious and crushing form of society. |
Replies:
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 02 2010 at 21:46
|
Ere I am JH
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: November 02 2010 at 21:56
|
When is the last time I made a serious thread? Musta been at least 3 years ago  |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 02 2010 at 22:17
|
If you didn't catch the joke, I won't ruin it with an explanation. Someone might.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: November 02 2010 at 22:36
|
I think the US is a police state. UK easily qualifies then. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Any Colour You Like
Date Posted: November 02 2010 at 22:46
| Pat thinks Saturn is a police state. Them astroid' belts oppressin' mah freedoms. |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: November 02 2010 at 22:58
One, you don't live there. I'd like input from people living the day in day out of it. Two, sorry your opinion is very difficult to take to heart on this one. Unless the government is a court system....you'd think it a police state. |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: November 02 2010 at 23:01
|
That is kind of why I asked this. I want some real input here. Calling the US a police state seems like a smack in the face to some real police states. |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 05:55
|
It's not a police state yet. Still quite far from it, in fact, but it's potentially on the cards imo. The transition to this kind of society would always be a gradual one. It was never suddenly going to be a land of curfews, with the police 'black bagging' subversives in the middle of the night. Of course some individuals are curfewed for repeat offending, and anti social behaviour, and I'm sure our intelligence services do what they have to do somtimes, but it's not yet run of the mill imo.
Ultimately the people may call for the type of civil liberty erosions and level of surveilance, which we currently protest so much about, if the 'terror threat' becomes too severe...or is perceived to be too severe, for current security arrangements to manage. This will be more likely than the state suddenly imposing 'martial law' or similar conditions. We've learnt a lot from history, and the biggest lesson of all is that if people are frightened they will accept some pretty draconian measures imposed on them, in the name of security. In short it is possible people will sleepwalk into a police state. Of course it all depends on whether or not you believe the authorities when they eventually tell you that it's 'for your own protection' If you natuarlly believe what you're told by governments, then no one will ever be able to convince you that you'll be living in a 'police state' Arguably this dynamic works the other way round too. Interestingly some pretty sinister laws have been passed in the UK, since 2001, in light of 9/11. Further measures were introduced after 7/7. As you may expect, no one shouted too loud about them. In 2002 David blunket (then home sec) pushed through a law giving traffic wardens (now officially called civil enforcement officers - although in public they are still good old traffic wardens) powers of arrest and detention. I was informed by a freind of a friend (who worked in a relevant public service), I met a few years back, that many TW's actually carry 'pace cards' which bear the script a cop has to read out when making an arrest. Blunketts law also gave government the power to use private security firms to search people and their homes in times of 'national emergency' This was briefly covered by the Guardian and The Times, but no one really kicked up much of a fuss about it. There is apparently a a widespread belief among the police that this government and the last are preparing for a time of 'massive civil unrest' and will need to utilise, TW's, CSO's, security firms, and the forces to police to the situation. In June 2005, the British government also slipped another interesting bill through parliament with little coverage or objection. This was the 'Enquries Act 2005' This act states that any independant public enquiry into any 'event' will be overseen by the relevent government executive; defence minister, health minister, etc. He or she will be able to decide the scope of the enquiry, and will be able to ensure that the 'right questions' are asked. I don't have to point out what's wrong with this arrangement, surely. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 06:00
| I don't know about UK, but Finland is a military state. |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 06:02
|
No it isn't. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: toroddfuglesteg
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 06:53
|
Nope. UK is not a police state at all. It is pretty easy to amass fortunes (millions of pounds) by living outside the law over here. That is due to the lack of powers the police have due to the strong civil liberties traditions here. You have to be pretty stupid to be caught by the police in the UK if you are involved in non-violent crimes. The reason is that the databases is not connected up together over here as in other European and American states. I sometimes visit a part of the UK where gangsters, aka freedom fighters and loyal unionists, openly flaunts the riches thirty years of maiming, killing and thuggery has given them. The police can't do anything. In fact, mass murderers are openly walking the streets and intimidate their victims families here due to their civil liberties. Three men who killed thirty people in a terrorist bomb some years ago walks freely in the streets and the police cannot touch them. That in the name of civilization. Name one other country where this would had been accepted. But I am sure it is good kosher to claim that UK is a police state, although facts contradicts this view.
|
Posted By: TGM: Orb
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 07:14
|
No. |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 08:03
First point is fair enough, but to the second that's not true. The country just threw someone into jail for offensive comments on a facebook page. I don't know what else to call that. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 08:07
Actually...that's a good point. But even so...Britain is still a long way from being a real police state. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: CCVP
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 08:11
You apparently didn't knew my country just elected a former USSR freedom fighter for president, did you? Apparently you can run for office even if you have no public life for 20 years and aggressively disrespect and incites against the Democratic Constitution and the civil liberties. Oh, did I forget to tell you that show not only was part of the most famous commie gerrilla in Brazil (Araguaia gerrilla), killed civillians, robbed banks and hijacked the USA ambassy?
 Now that is something, my friend. -------------   
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 08:12
|
Again, it comes down to definition. If you ask that madman Alex Jones if the US (and UK for that matter) are police states, he would say yes, but the 'sheeple' hadn't yet noticed, and by the time they do it'll be too late...etc.
So first, lets ask, what is a police state, and work back from that either ticking the boxes as we go, or debunking each point in turn. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: CCVP
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 08:16
Pretty much every contry in the Eastern Block + Francos's Spain and Salazar's Portugal. Those are good enough examples IMO. -------------
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 08:17
Pipes!  |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 08:22
|
I would define a police state loosely as a nation which legislates against mundane actions of the people (i.e. victimless crimes, non-crimes) or engages in secret surveillance of its people. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 08:22
|
I suspect there may not be a consensus on the definition. But with regard to eastern block countries are we talking post cold war? Is a police state any country with a dictator in power?
Other questions.. Can a liberal democracy become a police state? Why should democracy be an obstacle to complete state control? ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 08:25
|
Yes I would say absolutely any dictatorship is a police state. Since the dictator has absolute power, the police do as well. Dictatorships are always maintained by secret police forces. To the latter two: Yes. It is not an obstacle. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 08:28
Most nations have always spied on their own people, ever since they've had the means to do so. It's a basic operation of government, and nothing new. Of course the technology has changed somewhat. The UK has more CCTV cameras in operation, per person, than any other EU country. Both the US and UK have the means to track every single phone call, e-mail, text message you send, or web site you visit. They can run searches on 'key words' and log you on a database of potential subversives, but again this is nothing new. Albeit in a more primitive form this was going on throughout the cold war on both sides of the iron curtain. The broader philisophical question maybe should be, are all states 'police states' to some degree, by your definition? ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 08:32
|
Besides the facebook jailing, correct me if I'm wrong, but in the UK: 1) Only police may carry firearms. 2) A national ID card will be required 3) The city of London has thousands of police surveillance cameras complete with loudspeakers. 4) Country highways are equipped with automatic speed cameras. 5) Police officers will soon have an unmanned drone force at their disposal for surveillance and crowd control purposes. 6) The UK Terrorism Act allows people to be stopped and searched without reasonable cause required. 7) The state collects and stores fingerprint and DNA data for anyone suspected of a crime, even if the party is found innocent or charges never brought. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 08:35
You're just stating that most nations are police states. I can agree with that. We've just become so used to it. We always keep this idea that all those scary things we read about in Dystopian novels could never actually happen. We've entertained the idea too long as many things have already been done. Everything you described above is absolutely disgusting. I'm not qualified to answer your question. I don't know enough about all nations. I can say that not all states have been police states. I would wager a nation like Iceland, which tends to be great with civil liberties, probably does not qualify. However, I can't say I know too much about the country. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 08:37
|
Great post, Andy (the first one). I can understand the locals not feeling comfortable with all the video cameras installed everywhere, but I liked that when I've been to London. I've even assisted to the arrest of some dubious people, the cops seemed to come out of nowehere from various directions; that's probably because they know what's happening on the streets, due to the camera. I'd like to have that here, too, and I would have liked to have cameras on the boulevard where our car was stolen. |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 08:40
In other words, you prefer a police state, right? ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 08:41
To my knowledge.. Police officers, intelligence officers can routinely carry firearms, although in both cases, not all do. Unlike the US (correct me if I'm wrong) police in the UK only carry firearms under certain circumstances. The ID card scheme has been scrapped. Too many people worked out it was clearly a surveillence tool, and not and not an effective counter terrorism measure. The governments cover story was blown when it was demonstrated that such a scheme would not have stopped any terror atack ever carried out in the UK. There are speed cameras all over the place, but I don;t know what the overall policy is on them. The state is supposed to dispose of DNA evidence if someone is acquitted of a crime after x number of months, but I don't know how well this is monitored. Anti terror legislation brought in 2001/2, is far reaching, and has been openely abused by the authorities. Local councils have used it to spy on peoples re-cycling habits. Police have used it to stop and search anyone they personally didn;t like the look of (the colour of?) or to just move people on from public places they couldn't be arsed or didn't have the resources to police at the time. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 08:43
I'm sorry but doesn't this description pretty much paint a clear picture of a police state? You're fine to like the "security" that comes with no freedom and constant surveillance, but just call it a police state. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 08:44
No, it means that I prefer a state where the prevention of criminality is done better. Whether some tools (like those listed by Pat, above) are ever going to be used for purposes other than their initial ones (traffic safety, prevention of crime, of terrorism, etc.) it's a different matter. |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 08:45
I didn't know that about UK police, but my point still remains: Police can get guns. Citizens can not. Sorry about the ID. Didn't know it was shot down. Good for the country. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 08:45
Like I said to Rob, no. If those cameras are used to prevent crime, it's ok with me, if they're used to spy on me then it's not ok. |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 08:47
We do have a plague of CCTV. More than any other country in the world too, I gather. However, that doesn't mean we're a Police State yet. -------------   
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 08:48
Citizens can hold a gun license for certain calibre weapons. The two men who run amok with guns up north earlier this year, were licensed gun holders as far as I know. Also if you are a member of a rifle club, or on a shooting team you can own a gun, but I think it needs to be kept under lock and key at the clubs (??) Yeah, good news re; the ID cards. That was set to be a £70b white elephant if nothing else. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 08:50
Have you no mercy for poor ignorant soul? Now I'm curious as hell. ------------- |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 08:50
Yes, as you're saying it's ok with you. If they're being used to prevent crime, by definition then, they are spying on the people. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 08:51
But preventing crime in those ways comes as an expense of liberty and it always will. Where is the line drawn? What happens is that in order to prevent crime, the list of what constitutes a crime grows (and gun possession is just one of those items). ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 08:54
-------------
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 08:54
The tens of thousands of CCTV cameras in and around London didn't stop the 7/7 bombers. It probably didn;t help that half of them were switched off at the time. Of course there's hundreds of conspiracy theories around that day, but them aside, at least two of the bombers WERE known to intelligence services. You really dont have to do that much digging around to find out that their connections to AQ, and their being known to MI5 went back several years. They should have been under surveillence. It's a coincidence that the 'Enquiries Act 2005' went through the month before the bombings, so the authorities couldn't be strung up over their failings. I'm not suggesting fore knowledge, just that Blair knew there would be an attack at some point, and they would have to cover their arses. The recent inquest has done little more than dig up bad memories for the survivors, and criticise the fire service, who coincidentally are holding industrial action in London this week, and for many are not flavour of the month. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 08:54
No, because if I'm recorded simply walking on the street where a car will be stolen later, this will not interest the police guys. They will only be interested in people acting dubious (like staying to watch cars, trying to open them, etc.). |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 08:57
What liberty is it taken from me if I'm being recorded doing nothing that would attract the attention of someone trying to watch for criminals on that particular street? I don't know any. |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 08:58
Yes, they serve a purpose, but they are open to abuse. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 08:59
Agreed, but let's control the authorities then, not scrap these tools which are very good if only used for what they are intended for. That's my whole point. |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 09:10
Were ID cards not originally the idea of the John Major government? I may be wrong. In any case, I thought the whole thing had been scrapped, chiefly on grounds of cost. You know the sought of language the polticians use about such things. It all sounds reassuring, but it's important to sometimes read between their lines.. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 09:10
|
Even if you walk down the street and don't steal the car, you are recorded. They are abusive by their nature. There was no reasonable suspicion of you to commit a crime, but you were spied upon nonetheless. Even with angels in power they are abusive by their nature. And we ain't got no angels. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 09:14
At this point you are leaving facts and entering interpretation - I'll just say I disagree with your interpretation. |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 09:21
Nothing I stated wasn't a fact. The government needs reasonable suspicion of a crime to spy on you. It does not have any. It spies on you. You're free to like it, but this is what happens. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 09:28
|
We can also hold people without charge for quite long periods of time, under anti terror legislation. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: toroddfuglesteg
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 09:38
That was when Brazil was a military dictatorship. UK is not a military dictatorship so you are missing the boat with several oceans. There are no civil liberties under a military dictatorship for other than those who profits on this odious regime. Your description and anger also includes all West German leaders from Konrad Adenauer to Willy Brandt and is an incitement against all those who fought the Nazis in West Germany. Not to mention Winston Churchill who also fought the democratic elected Adolf Hitler and the civil liberties his henchmen enjoyed. But this is a sidetracking of the main debate. I personally have no problems at all with the CCTVs. I have nothing but a ghastly beard and a somewhat dubious dress sense to hide from the authorities. Feel free to film me.
|
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 09:48
|
Get real people. Cuba, North Korea and Iran are clear examples of what would constitute Police states. I agree there is cause for concern in respect of the growing enthusiasm in western democracies for ID cards, CCTV, detention without trial and censorship of the press etc but we are still afforded the luxury of discussing this gradual erosion of our libeties until such time as the next terrorist atrocity is perpetuated. So make hay folks. BTW who is this american guy Ron Paul - 'Is America a Police State?' My answer is: 'Maybe not yet, but it is fast approaching.' Is he a nutter or does he have any credibility? ------------- 
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 10:03
^^ From the films I've watched on Youtube, he's on the same page as Alex Jones, re; NWO conspiracy theory. Jones believes that Amercians are about to have their guns confiscated so they can't resist the new world order army, when they round everyone up and put them in FEMA death camps. I've long suspected Jones to be a screaming right winger, masquerading as a civil libertarian, despite his non partisan claims..
 ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 10:15
|
Most surveillance CCTV cameras in the UK are in private ownership operated by private security companies - very few of these are networked and accessible by "the authorities". Most of the cameras on public highways are traffic monitoring, operated by the Highways Agency and are not used for motoring offence detection - the tall blue cameras (Trafficmaster) on major routes are privately owned and operated and are used to notify subscribers of congestion and accidents.
None of these cameras can identify you personally - even speed cameras can only identify the vehicle, not the driver.
But if you want a device that knows where you are every minute of the day, here's your personal surveillance, tracking and ID device:
 ------------- What? |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 10:27
|
Ooooh, that Sony Ericsson is my old 'phone! Isn't there also that curfew case in Cornwall (forget the town in question)? I forget the details exactly but I think certain teenagers have to be in by 9 p.m. or something. It maybe all teenagers, I'm not sure. It's an experiment though. -------------
|
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 10:29
Yep, the idea has been scrapped now. I was never that anti them but I'm not completely for them either. -------------
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 10:31
Yes, I remember that. It was a pilate scheme in an area with lots of 'anti social behaviour' I Can't imagine that in Cornwall..  Anyway, I'm not sure how it all worked. It was in the news for one day, and then was buried.------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 10:32
|
They mentioned it on the One Show as well, I think, or perhaps it was Breakfast. But they did cover it a little more than a day. It may have been Devon but I'm pretty sure it was Cornwall. -------------
|
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 10:48
And I don't own one and prefer to keep it that way.  ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 10:49
Redruth. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 10:50
How is Pontius these days? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 10:50
So would you be all right with cameras in every room of your home? After all, you're not doing anything illegal in there, right? What liberty is taken from you? Think of what an awesome idea it would be! It could prevent a lot of child abuse and domestic violence! ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 10:58
Ah, thanks Ian. I think it was for a year, which means it may have ended now. I need to look it up. -------------
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 11:36
|
Maybe accepting a "light" version of a police state is not bad... the problem is that the society that allows that "light" version gets used to it and eventually learns to accept anything, eventually degrading into a more "dark" version, real, stronger, of a police state. Cameras everywhere? Disgusting. I even have issues with red-light cameras here in Broward county FL. Because I see them as the potential first step into everywhere-cameras. Eventually, for the sake of safety, cameras can start intruding in hotel rooms, bathrooms, until they reach your actual home. If property serves a social purpose (as is stated for example in the constitution in my country  ), it could be said that putting a camera in your house serves a social purpose of stopping you from cooking crack or masturbating for too long or watching too much cartoons... On this issue I quite love how the US handles things... though negative signs as red-light cameras have started to emerge... ------------- 
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 11:39
|
Excuse me for this question but do british people tend to have a special tendency to recognize powers from above? I'm not taking gods and religion... I'm talking about the fact that the country still has a damn monarchy who I'm sure live off taxpayers money? (explain it to me please I have no clue as to how the monarchy is sustained financially). If you accept that some people are so special, is quite normal if you start allowing more powerful people to control you... Am I far off here? -------------
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 11:40
He's the only respectable politician in my country IMO. You talk about police states as if there's not degrees of it. The Holocaust was a bigger massacre than Dresden, but that doesn't make Dresden not a massacre. Just because police states can get worse, we can't dismiss the police state. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 11:41
Geeze we agree perfectly. Red light camera are primarily there as a tax collection device, but they're also just the first step, softening the public up to more invasive camera measures. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 11:53
[I'm an anti-monarchist, but it difficult to argue against them as an institution] ------------- What? |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 12:02
|
The Monarchy is just something that doesn't register with me. I'm neither for them or against them. It's part of our 'quaintness' I guess.
After every election we go through the pantomime of the new PM going to the queen, so she can ask them to form a government. It's all a big 'whatever' really. The T's point about the possible danger of accepting a 'Light police state' leading to a much darker arrangement is a fairly valid one, but the masses would not sleepwalk into that. There would have to be an 'event' that initiated such a transition. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 12:05
I'm not sure how I feel about Ron Paul really, althoguh I think he makes his point quite eloquently, and certainly doesn't come across as a lunatic. It's become a little too easy to dismiss people who voice concern about the direction of their country, as lunatics IMO. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 12:09
I used to wonder what would actually happen if she did not grant permission to form the government, but my guess is they would ignore her and probably abolish the monarchy in short order. Sounds like Britain is content to keep the royals around as long as they don't actually interfere with anything meaningful.
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 12:17
I fail to see the logical succession between putting camera for street surveillance and invading people's homes. Of course I wouldn't agree with my home being surveyed through video cameras, but nobody is actually installing video cameras in people's houses just because they were previously ok with street surveillance. It's just a convoluted argument. |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 12:21
I would agree to it. That way, if someone tries to break into my house and steal things, they will be recorded and apprehended. It's for my protection, you see. If I were to disagree with it, it must mean I have something to hide, or I'm engaging in illegal activity of some sort.
|
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 12:23
Then I'll explain: The justification you gave for street cameras is that street cameras prevent crime (emboldened above). Lots of crime occurs in people's homes. Installing cameras in everyone's homes would prevent crime. Therefore, cameras in people's homes must be justified. If this is not the case, then why not? ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 12:25
|
And now I'll play devil's advocate! Do you have an expectation of privacy on a public street?
|
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 12:26
So you wouldn't mind being naked and your children being naked and your wife being naked and also the all the stuff you do in the bedroom and bathroom? -------------
|
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 12:27
Relax pal - I was being satirical.
|
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 12:27
|
Good good.
-------------
|
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 12:31
Yeah, while I disagree with Alex because there's really no difference between cameras recording everything for crime and "spying" on citizens, I have trouble getting too upset about it because when you are outside people can see you. However, as I recall, the cameras don't actually prevent crime so they're not really worth the money. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 12:35
Yes, although that privacy is by nature limited (because I am in public). For example, what I do can be freely observed in public. However, my merely being in public doesn't give anyone the right to record me without my consent. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 12:38
|
If you believe the newspapers, then violent crime has been on the rise in the UK for decades, constantly and CCTV does nothing to prevent it. If you believe the government - any government past and present - crime has only ever been falling. By the latter logic we should now be living in a crime free utopia, and CCTV on every street shouldn't be necessary.
I can't recall a single government in living memory who has held it's hands up and admitted to having presided over an increase in crime. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 12:45
What is the difference between observing someone and recording them? Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#Public_property - the law disagrees with you . This, of course, is still sometimes an issue since many parents get psychotic if a male stranger has a camera around their children, and cops often don't like to be held accountable for their actions with videotape. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 12:47
|
All those MORI polls don't help either. Do Statisticians actually know anything?
-------------
|
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 12:51
It doesn't matter what the law says, because that's kind of what we're discussing...should such a thing be legal? ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 12:53
|
James: I think stats, in this context, are basically meaningless. They can be spun and presented in any way a government chooses. Stats that suggest an increase in crime, for example, can also be used to prove a decrease, if you present them differently.
As far as I'm aware, in the UK regional police forces have a certain amount of leeway in how they compile their figures. What constitutes a violent crime stat in one county can differ from the neighbouring county. In some counties only a conviction is recorded. In other words a violent crime has taken place, but the victim didn't press charges for whatever reason, then the incident is not recorded. This is what happens in a target culture; boxes are ticked but the whole story is not always told. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 12:53
|
I suspect you'd get your video camera confiscated if you were to film a drugs raid or something. Especially if they were undercover police, or something. -------------
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 12:57
You can easily install a not very expensive surveillance system for yourself, that you can control yourself.  |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 12:57
I think it is technically illegal to film a police officer at work, although it's not always a law that can be enforced, obviously. In any case a police officer has the right to confiscate your camera or phone at a crime scene. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 13:00
|
A friend of mine took some photos on her camera 'phone the other day when there was a drugs raid around the corner. There was nobody in but they did come out with a huge bag of weed. Luckily they didn't catch her. So why can't we get our privacy as well? Someone my father worked with had his photograph taken whilst working and it was used on a big poster in town. He actually successfully sued the company for illegally using his image. -------------
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 13:01
Unlike you (disclamer: this isn't a derogatory mention ), I don't base my position on a principle that must be employed in all situations; I judge situations by sepparately, by their own pros and cons. In this situation you describe, I think the con of invading privacy vastely overweighs the pro of preventing crime. |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 13:02
Why should I pay for it when the government can just provide it for me?
 |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 13:04
So how do you control cops? Can't you film them abusing their power? -------------
|
Posted By: Gamemako
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 13:06
Yeah, until they take the camera and claim it never happened. Pigs are like that. Also, in the United States, you can film anyone in a public area. Pigs included. Unfortunately, many pigs don't seem to know this and think they can sue riders whom they abuse. ------------- Hail Eris! 
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 13:06
Me? Yes. For example, I expect that recordings made by video cameras are solved only in cases that regard public safety (like identifying thiefs, hooligans, addressing in real time agressions and other crimes that occur). Also, I expect that people who get recorded are not identified unless it's needed for solving a situation like those described above. And finally, I expect that tapes or digital files are erased after a resonable time. From what I know these are more or less the legal guidelines for street surveillance in most non-police-state countries. |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 13:08
They do get caught out. Sometimes they are victims of CCTV
There was an incident recently where a cop was repeatedly punching a stab victim in a park who took exception to being helped by them. They restrained him, but when he struggled one of them punched him several times. Not sure of the outcome, but the cop was 'investigated' Also, in riots or demos when the police can't control who is taking snaps on their phones, they have been caught out abusing their power. They always get taken to task over it, but I can't remember when there was last an actual conviction. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 13:09
There's a major difference between spying on citizens and recording without identifying the people who get recorded. Had there been a camera on the boulevard where our car was stolen, we could have gotten the car back. If would have definitely been worthed. |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 13:11
Because then no outsider would interfere over your private life |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 13:11
There was also a case in Wiltshire where a woman was dragged through a police station and thrown into a cell when she wasn't even a risk. It was caught on the CCTV of the Police Station. The guy got suspended, I think. -------------
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 13:12
You are expecting things that depend totally on the type of person controlling the recordings. If, bad luck, the imperfect person is the one in charge, you can expect your privacy to go the way of the dodo.... -------------
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 13:12
The guy was suspended? Why wasn't he thrown in jail? -------------
|
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 13:13
|
I think he may have been actually. Let me look it up.
-------------
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 13:13
I know that. I'm sure I'd have a different discourse if I were from China, Iran or maybe even Israel. |