Oi , Roz ! Be careful when taking your snaps...

[The Oldman]

Wouldn't/doesn't bother me one way or the other.

A future thread on NSC:

Poster 1: "It's ridiculous, I was just walking to the pub last night and I was stopped by a PCSO who asked me where I was going. When I said the Red Lion she sent me home because I didn't have the right form on me. Bloody country's turning into a police state."

Poster 2: "What's the problem? If you want to go to the pub all you have to do is go to the government's Pub Access website and key in your name and password. It then checks how many units you've drunk that week and prints out your permit with your allowance for that day on it. You simply take that to the pub with you and show it to the bar staff. After all you won't get served without it so you were just being stupid. You order your drinkand they key it in to the computer so that your units total gets updated. It's a really straightforward system to control alcohol abuse and I can't understand why anyone complains."


Ok, maybe that won't happen, but I AM slightly depressed by all the people who are saying "What's the big deal? Did he have something to hide?" It IS the thin end of the wedge: more and more activities are getting more formally controlled and monitored - or just plain outlawed. Was it the Byzantine empire where everything that wasn't compulsory was forbidden?

Agree with every word.
I always remember in the 1950's when Orwell's 1984 was serialised on the Tele and people scoffed about Big Brother watching people on the streets and inside buildings. Our English teacher was adamant that the UK would not tolerate such spying on the populace and any government who tried would be kicked out.
Now I believe we are the most watched nation in the world with more CCTV cameras per population than anyone else. More and more government agencies have the legal right to invade our homes and under the pretext of fighting terroists common and statute law is set aside. Even to go to some football matches you now have to be on a database. Beware folks, Brovion's prediction is not that farfetched.

 

[BLOCK F]

Wouldn't/doesn't bother me one way or the other.

A future thread on NSC:

Poster 1: "It's ridiculous, I was just walking to the pub last night and I was stopped by a PCSO who asked me where I was going. When I said the Red Lion she sent me home because I didn't have the right form on me. Bloody country's turning into a police state."

Poster 2: "What's the problem? If you want to go to the pub all you have to do is go to the government's Pub Access website and key in your name and password. It then checks how many units you've drunk that week and prints out your permit with your allowance for that day on it. You simply take that to the pub with you and show it to the bar staff. After all you won't get served without it so you were just being stupid. You order your drinkand they key it in to the computer so that your units total gets updated. It's a really straightforward system to control alcohol abuse and I can't understand why anyone complains."


Ok, maybe that won't happen, but I AM slightly depressed by all the people who are saying "What's the big deal? Did he have something to hide?" It IS the thin end of the wedge: more and more activities are getting more formally controlled and monitored - or just plain outlawed. Was it the Byzantine empire where everything that wasn't compulsory was forbidden?

Couldn't agree more.This country is in danger of walking into a 'Big Brother' state and sadly many of the younger generation who in previous times would be up in arms about it just shrug and accept it...perhaps they are already part brainwashed.As an older guy who was a student in the 60's,I am very worried about the way this creeping surveillance society has developed.Apathy today amongst citizens of this country is just encouraging the 'bastards' to carry on .....'cos after all it is all for your protection....my arse!!!

 

[Don't get me started]

By the way it was 21st February 1952 that Winston Churchill repealed wartime ID Cards in the "interest of public freedom" nowdays these bastards want to know everything about us.

 

[Dandyman]

By the way it was 21st February 1952 that Winston Churchill repealed wartime ID Cards in the "interest of public freedom" nowdays these bastards want to know everything about us.

Worth reading the comments of Lord Goddard in the court case that forced Churchill's hand...

LORD GODDARD, Willcock v. Muckle, 26 June 1951. Decision that led to Parliament's repeal of National ID card in 1952,

"it is obvious that the police now, as a matter of routine, demand the production of national registration indemnity cards whenever they stop or interrogate a motorist for whatever cause. Of course, if they are looking for a stolen car or have reason to believe that a particular motorist is engaged in committing a crime, that is one thing, but to demand a national registration identity card from all and sundry, for instance, from a lady who may leave her car outside a shop longer than she should, or some trivial matter of that sort, is wholly unreasonable.

(it) tends to turn law-abiding subjects into lawbreakers, which is a most undesirable state of affairs. Further, in this country we have always prided ourselves on the good feeling that exists between the police and the public and such action tends to make the people resentful of the acts of the police and inclines them to obstruct the police instead of to assist them

...

 

[Don't get me started]

Nice find Dandyman

My feelings exactly! you know the resentment is going to start building up

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I don't buy the "if you have nothing to hide you having nothing to fear" arguement. Would those that support that stance be willing to see police given the power to search any property at any time ? If the asnwer is no, why not, if you've got nothing to hide .......

The issue with data collection such as the DNA database is you've no idea what type of government we may get in 5, 20 or 50 years time. Some might scoff but look at the rise of the Nazi party in the 1930's and look at what's currently happening with the BNP.

The authorities should only be given information they need - they don't need the DNA of innocent people.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Its all a bit silly isnt it? had he just given his details the OB would have checked his details on whatever anti-terrorist database they hold, he would then have been told to be careful what he is filming and been on his way.

Unless he has something to hide that is.

So you are saying someone who was doing nothing wrong must cave in to the Police requests to identify themselves because of a suspicion despite being entirely within their rights to refuse but if they do chose to refuse, the Police are then allowed to then harass that person??

If they got that individuals details, their reports of suspicious behavoir wouldn't be enough to get a conviction if they are then taken to court, they would have no case to answer as there isn't any proof. The images that the PCSO may have requested to see would then have been open to their interpretation as to whether they were terrorism linked, something i highly doubt that they would have any training for, so how could the PCSO decide if further action is needed. Is a picture of a building just a picture of a building or that persons intended terrorist target?

We live in a CCTV society and its highly likely that the area that they were photographing in would have been covered by cameras, so why couldn't their actions be observed remotely to watch their behavoir and decide if they were acting suspiciously and therefore an intervention was needed rather than just stopping and subsquently harassing 2 law abiding people doing activities that are within the law?

CCTV software has facial recognition capability, so anyone who may already be under surveillance or been flagged up as a risk could be spotted and tracked by CCTV and their actions observed and if intervention was needed, then they could act. So why the need to ask for their details because if they weren't already seen as a risk, then the database wouldn't flag then up anyway so why bother?

We live in an age of micro technology, and miniture cameras etc, so anyone could potentially have a button camera or other covert equipment upon themselves and be taking shots of potential terrorist targets or whatever, so should everyone be constantly stopped and searched just in case?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Since Roz's name features in the title of this thread, I will make my prediction of how she would respond to any interference by the old bill ...

A short conversation would ensue. It would start with the words "I'm a journalist. Do you want to see my press card?" From thereon in, the NUJ's advice that the "guidelines" used by the police are unlawful would feature heavily.

NUJ - National Union of Journalists

And it's not just paid-up members of the NUJ who should be challenging this nonsense.

The police do not have the right to view photographs or interfere with the process of taking photographs, unless they have real grounds for reasonably suspecting the photographer to be a terrorist. Taking photographs in a public place is not, in itself, any evidence at all.