What's happened to the UK?

[FPAlpha]

and if you've not done anything wrong, what have you got to hide?

Did you read the oppresive regime's (tm) handbook?

This is the standard answer to criticism against an overly powerful government.. if you have a clean vest then where's the problem? Only those who have to hide something have to fear it.

The problem is that the government is comprised of people just like us and they make mistakes to or have somewhat loser morals.

"Oh.. we'll just violate this part of the constitution once for the greater good. You don't mind do you? We need to observe these potential terrorists to keep ypu safe!"

But where are the limits to that? From once it becomes sometimes, then there's a law passed to allow it under special circumstances and so on until the passage protecting your personal liberties is re-worded so you can't argue against it from a legal point of view.

It is a slow and almost unnoticeable process that's easily overlooked but it has dangers of its own and not everything the government does is in the people's best interest so it pays off to be a little open eyed and open minded and open your mouth on time to say stop.

 

[Deckerd]

I happened to notice the BBC's "most read" news stories right now, and it is an absolute disgrace and appalling reflection on this country. Hopefully by the time you click the link, a more positive vision of the UK will have emerged.

Mister Grumpy

You should read the Wail; that will make you laugh.

 

[cultcross]

and if you've not done anything wrong, what have you got to hide?

Did you read the oppresive regime's (tm) handbook?

This is the standard answer to criticism against an overly powerful government.. if you have a clean vest then where's the problem? Only those who have to hide something have to fear it.

The problem is that the government is comprised of people just like us and they make mistakes to or have somewhat loser morals.

"Oh.. we'll just violate this part of the constitution once for the greater good. You don't mind do you? We need to observe these potential terrorists to keep ypu safe!"

But where are the limits to that? From once it becomes sometimes, then there's a law passed to allow it under special circumstances and so on until the passage protecting your personal liberties is re-worded so you can't argue against it from a legal point of view.

It is a slow and almost unnoticeable process that's easily overlooked but it has dangers of its own and not everything the government does is in the people's best interest so it pays off to be a little open eyed and open minded and open your mouth on time to say stop.

Unfortunately, I don't tend to subscribe to 'slippery slope' arguments - We actually have a semi-decent track record of curbs on government misuse of things like CCTV cameras and data sharing. The Data Protection Act is enforced very strongly, and attempts by parliament to circumvent civil liberties in the name of security (eg. 42 day detention) usually hit walls of either backbencher defection or Lords rebound. Councils who have been overzealous with CCTV usage (contrary to public belief it is not the police who operate CCTV) have hand their hands appropriately slapped. It's not perfect, by any means, but it is good enough at catching misuses that it allows some confidence in the measures we actually have, imho.

 

[Deckerd]

The perception from North America seems to be that we are watched 24 hours a day and nothing is private any more. For the vast majority of people in the UK, CCTV impinges not at all on our daily lives. On the other hand it's used a lot to convict criminals. It seems a decent trade-off to me.

 

[cultcross]

The perception from North America seems to be that we are watched 24 hours a day and nothing is private any more. For the vast majority of people in the UK, CCTV impinges not at all on our daily lives. On the other hand it's used a lot to convict criminals. It seems a decent trade-off to me.

You remember that ridiculous figure of 'you're caught on CCTV xxx times a day' that was something like 3000? Turns out the way that was counted was every unique appearance on a camera. So going round a supermarket, you probably clock up a hundred instantly.

 

[Pingfah]

I think people think there is a bunch of government agents watching you through them noting down your every move. They aren't even being watched a lot of the time, or if they are it's by a minimum wage security guard with his feet up reading the Sun with about 50 different screens to look at.

They are mostly referred to after a crime has been committed.

 

[cultcross]

I think people think there is a bunch of government agents watching you through them noting down your every move. They aren't even being watched a lot of the time, or if they are it's by a minimum wage security guard with his feet up reading the Sun with about 50 different screens to look at.

They are mostly referred to after a crime has been committed.

Exactly. Every camera generates 24hrs of footage a day. No-one watches all that, you'd have to employ half the country to watch the other half all day every day.

 

[john titor]

How about the fact that it's true? If the cameras were removed, the level of crime detection and conviction would fall dramatically. Whether that justifies the existence of cameras to each individual person is up to them, but it is a fact. CCTV is regularly an absolutely key piece of evidence in both catching and convicting criminals.

Despite the fact that there is no decrease in crime and people still live in fear of knife wielding chavs. I blame it on Thatchers dogged pursuit of friedmans economic philosophy creating a whole generation of disenfranchised sociopaths.

 

[Deckerd]

There is a decrease in crime. There are pockets of knife crime which are far above the national norm, which get a lot of publicity.

 

[K'Ehleyr]

TV dance man, 73, loses benefits - a potential benefit cheat gets caught by his own stupidity and half the country seems to think it's a shame because he happens to be mildly entertaining on TV...

I would say cringingly embarrassing rather than mildly entertaining though. Count me in the other half.

 

[Goliath]

"Oh.. we'll just violate this part of the constitution once for the greater good. You don't mind do you? We need to observe these potential terrorists to keep ypu safe!"

I think the problem with your argument is here.

First of all, the UK doesn't have a "constitution," as you or I would understand it. But let's put that issue aside.

Your argument assumes, essentially, that people have some kind of fundamental right to not be photographed while in public--and that CCTV cameras violate this right.

To the best of my knowledge, no such right exists, anywhere. Or ever has existed, anywhere.

Not only is there no such constitutional guarantee in Western countries--I'm not even sure that it's against the ordinary laws of most countries to photograph people while they're out in public. Not only is the slope not slippery--there is no slope.

I know there's no such law here in Canada. I found that out when my teaching assistants' union went on strike. Some asshole drove his car right through our picket line, and then parked it nearby. I happened to have a camera, so I went over and took a picture of his car and license plate.

At that point, the asshole got out of his car, got in my face, and demanded that I hand over my film , claiming that I was violating the Criminal Code: he even quoted a numbered section. I told him that, to the best of my knowledge, I was acting perfectly within my rights, and if he thought I had committed a crime, then we could go down to the cop shop and let them sort it out. Eventually, he backed down.

I looked it up afterward. Not only could I not find a section of the Criminal Code dealing with photographing people in public--I couldn't find the section to which the asshole had referred. He just made it up.

When you're out in public, you're just that: out in public. People can watch you. People can listen to you. People can photograph you. If you don't want anyone observing you, then stay in your private residence, with the curtains closed. That's where the limit lies.

Some kind of legal right to privacy while out in public would actually be an intolerable infringement on other people's freedoms. It would essentially give you the right to tell other people where they can look, and where they can't; what they can photograph, and what they can't.

It would essentially give you the power of a king to command that his subjects avert their eyes, and not look directly at him. Now, where would that power come from?

 

[cultcross]

^ Well put.

How about the fact that it's true? If the cameras were removed, the level of crime detection and conviction would fall dramatically. Whether that justifies the existence of cameras to each individual person is up to them, but it is a fact. CCTV is regularly an absolutely key piece of evidence in both catching and convicting criminals.

Despite the fact that there is no decrease in crime and people still live in fear of knife wielding chavs. I blame it on Thatchers dogged pursuit of friedmans economic philosophy creating a whole generation of disenfranchised sociopaths.

Crime has been decreasing for years. Fear of crime has always had an interesting disconnect with actual crime rates, and is more correlated to the amount of crime reporting that goes on in the tabloid press.
Detection rates have also risen year after year across the country, and that is in no small part because of CCTV.

 

[Count Zero]

There's a difference between being photographed and being under more or less constant surveillance as is the case with CCTV. Me, I'd feel uncomfortable for being treated like a potential criminal and it's the one thing that really bugs me about the UK. But then, I don't live there and the vast majority seems to be ok with it.

 

[Deckerd]

But then, I don't live there and the vast majority seems to be ok with it.

True. It seems this part of Holdy's grumble has ended up with everyone agreeing with each other.

 

[john titor]

^ Well put.

How about the fact that it's true? If the cameras were removed, the level of crime detection and conviction would fall dramatically. Whether that justifies the existence of cameras to each individual person is up to them, but it is a fact. CCTV is regularly an absolutely key piece of evidence in both catching and convicting criminals.

Despite the fact that there is no decrease in crime and people still live in fear of knife wielding chavs. I blame it on Thatchers dogged pursuit of friedmans economic philosophy creating a whole generation of disenfranchised sociopaths.

Crime has been decreasing for years. Fear of crime has always had an interesting disconnect with actual crime rates, and is more correlated to the amount of crime reporting that goes on in the tabloid press.
Detection rates have also risen year after year across the country, and that is in no small part because of CCTV.

ask anyone on the ground what they think and they'll tell you that the local scumbag situation is way out of hand, maybe their activities can be classed as minor social nuisances but that's not how its experienced.

 

[JoeZhang]

^ Well put.

How about the fact that it's true? If the cameras were removed, the level of crime detection and conviction would fall dramatically. Whether that justifies the existence of cameras to each individual person is up to them, but it is a fact. CCTV is regularly an absolutely key piece of evidence in both catching and convicting criminals.

Despite the fact that there is no decrease in crime and people still live in fear of knife wielding chavs. I blame it on Thatchers dogged pursuit of friedmans economic philosophy creating a whole generation of disenfranchised sociopaths.

Crime has been decreasing for years. Fear of crime has always had an interesting disconnect with actual crime rates, and is more correlated to the amount of crime reporting that goes on in the tabloid press.
Detection rates have also risen year after year across the country, and that is in no small part because of CCTV.

Yeah it's interesting - I do work with Police Forces at the senior management level and the fear of crime is high in areas where the risk is actually low, so they end up deploying operational resources simply for the purposes of high visability.

 

[Holdfast]

And I hear that Labour did smashingly well in the elections and that Gordon Brown is the dog's bollocks.

It amazes and horrifies me that he's still in power.

Sod that. If they can't make money by running commercials, it's probably telling them something about the changed nature of the market.

Exactly. Nobody watches local news because it's boring. The only reason I occasionally tune into South Today is to see if Georgie Palmer is presenting anything.

It seems this part of Holdy's grumble has ended up with everyone agreeing with each other.

CCTV wasn't even part of my grumble. It was part of someone else's grumble. More attention to MY grumbles is required.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

and if you've not done anything wrong, what have you got to hide?

Did you read the oppresive regime's (tm) handbook?

This is the standard answer to criticism against an overly powerful government.. if you have a clean vest then where's the problem? Only those who have to hide something have to fear it.

The problem is that the government is comprised of people just like us and they make mistakes to or have somewhat loser morals.

"Oh.. we'll just violate this part of the constitution once for the greater good. You don't mind do you? We need to observe these potential terrorists to keep ypu safe!"

But where are the limits to that? From once it becomes sometimes, then there's a law passed to allow it under special circumstances and so on until the passage protecting your personal liberties is re-worded so you can't argue against it from a legal point of view.

It is a slow and almost unnoticeable process that's easily overlooked but it has dangers of its own and not everything the government does is in the people's best interest so it pays off to be a little open eyed and open minded and open your mouth on time to say stop.

Unfortunately, I don't tend to subscribe to 'slippery slope' arguments - We actually have a semi-decent track record of curbs on government misuse of things like CCTV cameras and data sharing. The Data Protection Act is enforced very strongly, and attempts by parliament to circumvent civil liberties in the name of security (eg. 42 day detention) usually hit walls of either backbencher defection or Lords rebound. Councils who have been overzealous with CCTV usage (contrary to public belief it is not the police who operate CCTV) have hand their hands appropriately slapped. It's not perfect, by any means, but it is good enough at catching misuses that it allows some confidence in the measures we actually have, imho.

WE've had these discussions before, so I guess we both know where each other stands on the CCTV issue, but you're saying a lot of misuse of these sorts of laws get curbed pretty quick, but what about the recent events with the police taking off their ID numbers and beating protesters, and the attempt to make it illegal to photograph and officer of the law? If the law hadn't have been broken by photographing them these things wouldn't have come to light so quickly.
And what about the way they're suppressing the right to protest outside parliament with the use of the serious and organised crime act? Don't you think these are misuse and abuse of the law? They aren't being curbed very quickly are they?

 

[Mallory]

I know that in the US it's illegal and punishable to publicly criticize the government and expecially the President while in the armed forces.

Whatever gave you that idea? Because it's absolutely untrue.

Unless you were being sarcastic and I missed the point completely.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Exactly. Nobody watches local news because it's boring. The only reason I occasionally tune into South Today is to see if Georgie Palmer is presenting anything.

Actually, the news bulletins usually come quite high up in the ratings, on ITV and BBC...