British politics

We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harasment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Pages:
1
2
3

British politics; will covert surveillance be an issue?
Topic Started: Monday, 26. October 2009, 13:02 (291 Views)
JRJ	Monday, 26. October 2009, 13:02 Post #1
Posts: 646 Group: Members Member #117 Joined: December 5, 2007	Does the issue of government surveillance of private citizens get much discussion in your Parish or other groups of citizens? From http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/world/europe/25surveillance.html?_r=1 Britons Weary of Surveillance in Minor Cases By SARAH LYALL Published: October 24, 2009 POOLE, England — It has become commonplace to call Britain a “surveillance society,” a place where security cameras lurk at every corner, giant databases keep track of intimate personal details and the government has extraordinary powers to intrude into citizens’ lives... ... for more than three weeks in 2008, an officer from the Poole education department secretly followed her, noting on a log the movements of the “female and three children” and the “target vehicle” (that would be Ms. Paton, her daughters and their car). It turned out that Ms. Paton had broken no rules. Her daughter was admitted to the school. But she has not let the matter rest. Her case, now scheduled to be heard by a regulatory tribunal, has become emblematic of the struggle between personal privacy and the ever more powerful state here. The Poole Borough Council, which governs the area of Dorset where Ms. Paton lives with her partner and their children, says it has done nothing wrong...
	Jennifer hubby's dinosaur blog


Derekap	Monday, 26. October 2009, 16:44 Post #2
Posts: 3,408 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: September 26, 2006	People who use the smart Oyster Card for cheaper travel round London (England) can get a print off of their usage. This gives the time, stage number and route number of the bus they board, also the time and name of the tube station they depart from and likewise arrive at, and the fare they pay. So, Big Brothers and Sisters are watching us. Increasingly so, it is possible on the internet to learn the time buses are estimated to arrive at Bus Stops and Underground trains in stations in London. (Rose, did I see you popping into St Burys after Holy Mass recently?) Edited by Derekap, Monday, 26. October 2009, 21:34.
	Derekap


JRJ	Tuesday, 27. October 2009, 14:50 Post #3
Posts: 646 Group: Members Member #117 Joined: December 5, 2007	We have a growing number of surveillance cameras in the US - many on the highway and public transportation systems.
	Jennifer hubby's dinosaur blog


Rose of York	Saturday, 31. October 2009, 21:45 Post #4
Administrator Posts: 14,517 Group: Admin Member #2 Joined: September 25, 2006	The UK Government seeks new powers of surveilliance over our modern communications. Quote: Guy Herbert of campaign group NO2ID said: "Just a week after the home secretary announced a public consultation on some trivial trimming of local authority surveillance, we have this: a proposal for powers more intrusive than any police state in history. "Ministers are making a distinction between content and communications data into sound-bite of the year. But it is spurious. "Officials from dozens of departments and quangos could know what you read online, and who all your friends are, who you emailed, when, and where you were when you did so - all without a warrant."[/quote He may be making a fuss about nothing. Quote: The security services already deploy advanced techniques to monitor telephone conversations or intercept other communications, but this is not used in criminal trials. Ms Smith said that while the new system could record a visit to a social network, it would not record personal and private information such as photos or messages posted to a page. "What we are talking about is who is at one end [of a communication] and who is at the other - and how they are communicating," she said. Existing legal safeguards under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act would continue to apply. Requests to see the data would require top level authorisation within a public body such as a police force. The Home Office is running a separate consultation on limiting the number of public authorities that can access sensitive information or carry out covert surveillance. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8020039.stm I would prefer it if information about internet use is only made available on the order of a judge. On the plus side, recently convicted paedophile Vanessa George, who worked in a childrens' day nursery, was detected through the police monitoring the activities of persons suspected of involvement with child pornography.
	$Posted Image$ Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards


Anne-Marie	Sunday, 1. November 2009, 09:03 Post #5
Posts: 500 Group: Members Member #242 Joined: August 21, 2009	Rose of York Saturday, 31. October 2009, 21:45 The UK Government seeks new powers of surveilliance over our modern communications. I would prefer it if information about internet use is only made available on the order of a judge. On the plus side, recently convicted paedophile Vanessa George, who worked in a childrens' day nursery, was detected through the police monitoring the activities of persons suspected of involvement with child pornography. Your argument, Rose, like the argument of the politicians, police and security folks, sounds so very reasonable that it's obvious... isn't it? Perhaps not quite so obvious when we recall, to take but one example, the murder of Jean Charles Menezes. The surveillance guys weren't paying enough attention, targetted the wrong person, held him down on an Underground train and repeatedly shot him in front of witnesses - and then, it seems, at point blank range some of the bullets still missed him! HOW can you miss at point blank range? Now if all that were not mad enough, some thoroughly evil senior police officer (whose identity is known) then sat down and started inventing a story of Menezes jumping over ticket barriers - someone actually sat down and INVENTED that! And got promoted for it! And it all turned out to be a pack of lies. Go back a few decades to 14 January 1983... police stopped a car with a criminal suspect in it... actually, he wasn't: they'd got the wrong guy. Having dragged Stephen Waldorf out of his car onto the road, they shot him and pistol-whipped him to death! So when you fast forward to the present and see what they did to Menezes... there is absolutely nothing new and nothing changed. If that is (and actually IT IS) what they do when they know who they're trying to catch, what sane person is going to trust these characters with constant monitoring of every detail of our lives? Do you REALLY want these people messing with YOUR life? Edited by Anne-Marie, Sunday, 1. November 2009, 10:20.
	Anne-Marie FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI


Mairtin	Sunday, 1. November 2009, 09:25 Post #6
Posts: 1,130 Group: Members Member #206 Joined: August 16, 2008	Anne-Marie Sunday, 1. November 2009, 09:03 Perhaps not quite so obvious when we recall, to take but one example, the murder of Jean Charles Menezes. Anne-Marie, the killing of Jean Charles Menezes was a truly awful affair but it don't think you can describe it as 'murder' which implies premeditation. Quote: ... some thoroughly evil senior police officer (whose identity is known) ... I don't think as Christians that we should be labelling anybody as "thoroughly evil", especially when their identity is known. Quote: Having dragged Stephen Waldorf out of his car onto the road, they shot him and pistol-whipped him to death! No, he didn't die, he recovered and eight years later (1991) took part in a Panorama programme about the shooting. Quote: If that is (and actually IT IS) what they do when they know who they're trying to catch, what sane person is going to trust these characters with constant monitoring of every detail of our lives? Do you REALLY want these people messing with YOUR life? Is dismissing the whole police force because of some bad apples any different than people dismissing the whole Catholic Church because of it's few bad apples? The day we start treating our whole police force and those in charge as evil, corrupt or untrustworthy is the day that the criminals and terrorists have won.
	Online Prayer - Night Prayer, Rosary and Lectio Divina Visit www.roomtopray.net for details of days and times


Anne-Marie	Sunday, 1. November 2009, 10:04 Post #7
Posts: 500 Group: Members Member #242 Joined: August 21, 2009	Mairtin Sunday, 1. November 2009, 09:25 No, he didn't die, he recovered and eight years later (1991) took part in a Panorama programme about the shooting. Thanks for correcting that, Mairtin. I had understood, checking coverage saved, that he had. Thanks for the correction. Still no excuse for pistol-whipping someone. I don't want or approve of our lives being monitored. Other countries would never tolerate that. And some of them are far more effective at catching and dealing with 'indesirables'.
	Anne-Marie FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI


Mairtin	Sunday, 1. November 2009, 10:15 Post #8
Posts: 1,130 Group: Members Member #206 Joined: August 16, 2008	I wasn't suggesting for one moment that it was. According to Stephen Waldorf, the policeman first of all placed his revolver between Waldorf's eyes, said "Okay, c********* " and pulled the trigger. It was only when he realise that he'd run out of ammunition that he started to pistol whip Waldorf. Quote: I don't want or approve of our lives being monitored. I watch The Bill occasionally and in that they show that when a crime is committed or a child goes missing, they can quickly track the person(s) involved with the multitude of surveillance cameras around, many of them live into the police station; I assume that is what happens in real life. Do you object to those cameras? Quote: Other countries would never tolerate that. And some of them are far more effective at catching and dealing with 'indesirables'. I doubt that you are right on either count there; have you any examples in mind of other countries that do less surveillance and are better at catching criminals?
	Online Prayer - Night Prayer, Rosary and Lectio Divina Visit www.roomtopray.net for details of days and times


Anne-Marie	Sunday, 1. November 2009, 10:33 Post #9
Posts: 500 Group: Members Member #242 Joined: August 21, 2009	Mairtin Sunday, 1. November 2009, 10:15 have you any examples in mind of other countries that do less surveillance and are better at catching criminals? Countries like France and Germany have a far better record at catching criminals without surveillance... when it is in the interest of the State. And a far worse record when the State wants a cover-up. The Czech Republic also has an excellent record. All three are helped by not being so 'eager' to let the undesirables back on the streets in a hurry! Surveillance is not the only way to achieve security. Nor does it help when there ARE cameras... and there ARE surveillance people on the ground... and when there ARE armed police arresting someone in full public view... and THEN shoot the guy dead WHILE he is being held down by colleagues... and THEN invent a pack of lies about what happened... and even then STILL leave the video evidence that they lied for all to find and see! And all those involved have a 'get-out-of-jail-for-free' card! Surveillance counts for nothing when you can't trust those surveilling you!
	Anne-Marie FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI


Anne-Marie	Sunday, 1. November 2009, 14:48 Post #10
Posts: 500 Group: Members Member #242 Joined: August 21, 2009	This story has appeared on my MSN newscast: Scotland Yard has issued an unreserved apology after issuing pictures of actors from a hit film among images of football fans wanted after rioting broke out at a match. Earlier this week police issued 66 pictures of people supposedly caught on camera during violent clashes at the game between West Ham and Millwall. It emerged that the images mistakenly included stills of six actors from the recent hooligan-themed movie The Firm. THAT is just yet another example of what happens when we let the police do what they like to. They just make it up as they go along! One of my friends was married to a polic officer... and has been scathing about what he used to get up to quite deliberately....
	Anne-Marie FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI


Rose of York	Sunday, 1. November 2009, 15:50 Post #11
Administrator Posts: 14,517 Group: Admin Member #2 Joined: September 25, 2006	Anne-Marie Sunday, 1. November 2009, 14:48 THAT is just yet another example of what happens when we let the police do what they like to. They just make it up as they go along! One of my friends was married to a polic officer... and has been scathing about what he used to get up to quite deliberately.... What your friend says about her husband, who is one individual, not representative of the whole police force, is irrelevant to the argument. One of my sisters was married to a police officer...and is proud of some of the things he used to do. Like your friend's husband, he was an individual officer, he was not the whole police service. Quote: Is dismissing the whole police force because of some bad apples any different than people dismissing the whole Catholic Church because of it's few bad apples? Anne-Marie it is not right to libel the whole police force because of the actions of a minority.
	$Posted Image$ Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards


Rose of York	Sunday, 1. November 2009, 15:58 Post #12
Administrator Posts: 14,517 Group: Admin Member #2 Joined: September 25, 2006	Anne-Marie Sunday, 1. November 2009, 10:04 I don't want or approve of our lives being monitored. Other countries would never tolerate that. There is no proposal to monitor everybody's lives. The Home Secretary has said existing legal safeguards under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act would continue to apply. Requests to see the data would require top level authorisation within a public body such as a police force. The Home Office is running a separate consultation on limiting the number of public authorities that can access sensitive information or carry out covert surveillance. All is made clear in Explanatory Notes to Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 Chapter 23 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2000/en/ukpgaen_20000023_en_1
	$Posted Image$ Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards


OsullivanB	Sunday, 1. November 2009, 16:07 Post #13
Posts: 2,193 Group: Moderator Member #205 Joined: August 14, 2008	Anne-Marie Having dragged Stephen Waldorf out of his car onto the road, they shot him and pistol-whipped him to death! They shot him in the head, but he did not die. He survuved to recover very substantial damages, though I'm sure he'd have preferred not to be shot in the first place.



Derekap	Sunday, 1. November 2009, 17:36 Post #14
Posts: 3,408 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: September 26, 2006	It is far easier to condemn the killing of Jean Charles Menezes now. When the incident happened people and the authorities were far more nervous. If the victim had been a terrorist and he had caused an explosion causing casualties and damage the police would have been criticised far more for not preventing it. This does not mean I have no sympathy for the victim and his relatives and friends.
	Derekap


Richard Hannay.	Sunday, 1. November 2009, 17:51 Post #15
Posts: 463 Group: Members Member #243 Joined: August 25, 2009	British politics; will covert surveillance be an issue? is the topic and the question asked at the beginning was "Does the issue of government surveillance of private citizens get much discussion in your Parish or other groups of citizens?" It does get much discussion in my company. I suspect that most of us are already aware that are actions are subject to a far more covert surveillance than the government can master, we are being watched by God. This may seem trite but the simple answer is if you wish your actions to be in secret then you should be asking why.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The Car Park · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3