Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mysteryman]

The temptation is of course to reduce the number of police officers made available on the ground to detect these and many other offences as it's less expensive to run a network of cameras than it is to train and employ qualified (full-time) police officers.

Exactly, Meaning the generally law-abiding majority for whom A NIP can be dropped into the post get law and order in abundance while a growing underclass with no fixed abode, cloned number plates, no trace of income or outgoings and, in many cases, probably no right to be here in the first place are free to do as they please.

Kevin

As I said............

[jereboam]

If you're not breaking the law then there's nothing to fear from the cameras ergo:
Those who voice objections must have something to feel guilty about

That oft-used argument does not work. It implies I have something to hide when I do not. Therefore "ergo" is incorrect-  it does not follow.

As for policing on the cheap - I object to that most strongly. Once reduced in size the forces in the UK will never return to strength. I hope current and past officers on here will comment?

Extract from Computer Weekly article that seeks to debunk the myth of "nothing to fear" feb 25 2009: read it all here

http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html

"Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" (NTHNTF) is a myth that is built on certain false assumptions, and these assumptions are never questioned when it is wheeled out as an argument to support whatever draconian surveillance measure is being pushed out in the face of citizen opposition (commercial organisations rarely try such an approach, since it dooms them to failure from the very beginning). These assumptions include:

Continuity: When a large data gathering exercise is started, the lifespan of the system will almost always be greater than that of its instigators. The most benign and caring government, authority or private company is inevitably subject to a change of management, and if the new executive does not share their moral stance, then data can be reused for very dangerous purposes. Those who provided data believing they had nothing to fear may find that data is misused in the future.
Context: Those who use the NTHNTF argument most commonly use it in the context of government collecting information about individuals. In the information age, the idea of a single entity holding that information does not hold true. The massive pressures to share information within and beyond government mean that information is constantly on the move. Sooner or later, information held by the government will be shared across the government and with the private sector.
Control: Whether through a sharing agreement, aggregation of databases or simply leaving a memory stick in a pub car park, information is always shared sooner or later. Information security professionals always assume a system to be insecure, and plan for when - not if - data is lost or corrupted.
Consistency: The most important issue is that of consistent use of accurate information across all authorities and all individuals.

I'm sure you will all have noticed that every time you come into contact with central or local government, or any of their agencies or when you apply to a public company for a job, you will almost certainly have to fill in a form about your ethnic origins, religious beliefs and sexual orientation.  This data is supposedly collected to monitor diversity to ensure that there is no discrimination.  It is supposedly anonymous data, retained by operatives who have no direct influence on the outcome of the application you have filled in, and it isn't passed to those who do have such influence.

I don't believe it.  I can't see how it can help reduce discrimination. 

If we ever have another Hitler come to power, the ethnic cleansing will be much more efficient. 

Refuse to fill in these forms.  They infringe your civil rights.

[Martin_1962]

If you're not breaking the law then there's nothing to fear from the cameras ergo:
Those who voice objections must have something to feel guilty about

Do you absolutely trust every government there is has been and will be?

Would you have trusted Stalin, Hitler ect?

I do not, I did not trust the last lot for certain.

Put it this way - there was no way I would have got an ID card - even if they had gone compulsary.

[Nickbat]

If you're not breaking the law then there's nothing to fear from the cameras ergo:
Those who voice objections must have something to feel guilty about

Do you absolutely trust every government there is has been and will be?

Would you have trusted Stalin, Hitler ect?

I do not, I did not trust the last lot for certain.

Put it this way - there was no way I would have got an ID card - even if they had gone compulsary.

But what about our new government? No, I don't mean the Cleggerons, I mean....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7893047/Fears-over-new-EU-snooping-powers-for-police.html

We have been royally stuffed. Mind you, it hasn't been difficult, apathy is rife. 

[Radiomarko]

That certainly confirms that the data is intended to be  shared....

Thanks for the link, I'll put my tinfoil helmet back on now - just because you are paranoid does not mean that they are not watching you.

[Dishevelled Den]

If you're not breaking the law then there's nothing to fear from the cameras ergo:
Those who voice objections must have something to feel guilty about

Do you absolutely trust every government there is has been and will be?

Would you have trusted Stalin, Hitler ect?

I do not, I did not trust the last lot for certain.

Put it this way - there was no way I would have got an ID card - even if they had gone compulsary.

But what about our new government? No, I don't mean the Cleggerons, I mean....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7893047/Fears-over-new-EU-snooping-powers-for-police.html

We have been royally stuffed. Mind you, it hasn't been difficult, apathy is rife. 

Stuffed we may well have been Nick - even right royally so - however it's all in the greater good - gird your loins.


EU to be given prominent UN role


The EU is to be given similar rights and powers to a fully fledged nation state in the United Nations general assembly.

That explains it then. 8-)   I'd buy it


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/7890516/EU-to-be-given-prominent-UN-role.html

[Nickbat]

Stuffed we may well have been Nick - even right royally so - however it's all in the greater good - gird your loins.

EU to be given prominent UN role

The EU is to be given similar rights and powers to a fully fledged nation state in the United Nations general assembly.

That explains it then. 8-)   I'd buy it

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/7890516/EU-to-be-given-prominent-UN-role.html

Yes, Zulu, it does seem as if the EU clique is marching onward towards its goals. However, having read a number of comments about this development, none struck me as more apposite than this one from "itisafreecountry" on the Dan Hannan blog:

It is built on sand, which is why the political class does not dare to put it to the electorate.
As Europe ages and fails it will fragment.
Without popular support a United States of Europe is not going to happen, and it has no popular support.
You can buy the political class but the real problem is how you control an increasingly resentful demos within the constraints of a nominal democracy that needs a relatively open economy in order to sustain its standard of living.
The acceptance that the Constitution would be rejected by referenda was an admission of failure. It is now just a matter of time and a suitable catalyst. 

My thoughts exactly. The EU is doomed to failure in the same way as the former USSR and Yugoslavia. It is only a question of when...and how violent it will be.

The reason, as the poster points out, is that it does not have a popular mandate. That fact alone seals its demise.

[Dishevelled Den]

Stuffed we may well have been Nick - even right royally so - however it's all in the greater good - gird your loins.

EU to be given prominent UN role

The EU is to be given similar rights and powers to a fully fledged nation state in the United Nations general assembly.

That explains it then. 8-)   I'd buy it

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/7890516/EU-to-be-given-prominent-UN-role.html

Yes, Zulu, it does seem as if the EU clique is marching onward towards its goals. However, having read a number of comments about this development, none struck me as more apposite than this one from "itisafreecountry" on the Dan Hannan blog:

It is built on sand, which is why the political class does not dare to put it to the electorate.
As Europe ages and fails it will fragment.
Without popular support a United States of Europe is not going to happen, and it has no popular support.
You can buy the political class but the real problem is how you control an increasingly resentful demos within the constraints of a nominal democracy that needs a relatively open economy in order to sustain its standard of living.
The acceptance that the Constitution would be rejected by referenda was an admission of failure. It is now just a matter of time and a suitable catalyst. 

My thoughts exactly. The EU is doomed to failure in the same way as the former USSR and Yugoslavia. It is only a question of when...and how violent it will be.

The reason, as the poster points out, is that it does not have a popular mandate. That fact alone seals its demise.

I would imagine that's the way pieces normally fall into place given a straightforward scenario where a sovereign government is chastised by its electorate having failed to meet the expectations of those electors.

I see the EU animal as something removed from the usual where the generally accepted precepts, of governing within the mandate granted by the electorate, may not necessarily play out.

'Brussels' has been very clever in entwining many aspects of day to day legislation throughout the membership nations by virtue of the plethora of directives and laws formulated to promote such a homologised entity. I don't think this will be so readily torn apart.

The Council and Commission seemingly have a clear agenda to establish and promote this super state and, as we have seen in the last but one referendum held in the Republic of Ireland on the Lisbon Treaty, they apparently refuse to take no for an answer.

I think these ties are so well settled now that nothing, short of a fundamental economic collapse within the Euro Zone or extended military conflict between two or more member states, will rend the current and proposed arrangements asunder.

Determination by 'Brussels' and the apathy you mentioned in your reply to my post should see the state free to expand to the unhealthy extent we're discussing.