Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

London Police Deploy Facial Recognition at Protest for First Time

reclaimthenet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 159 posts

Re: London Police Deploy Facial Recognition at Protest for First Time

#131

Post by skippyboxedhero »

adi_kurian wrote: post #90
skippyboxedhero wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There has been no violence at any of the previous marches iirc. I think people assume there must have been because Starmer and co are foaming for violence...but there weren't. Also, they have banned 11 people from getting visas because they were "agitators" and are deploying 4k police officers. Just as a reminder though, the UK has people standing for political office who were convicted of terrorist offences, we have…

Are the Met lying in these FOI request responses? https://www.met.police.uk/foi-ai/metropolitan-police/disclos...

I believe the total number of attendees was 150k. The same thing happened with student loans protest where the police go in very hard and manage to produce the arrests required. But the vast majority of people do not go to commit violence. Same thing happens at pro-Palestine protests and every other protest (although due to the funding situation and the executive structure of the Met, the policing guidance given to those protests tends to be different).

And btw, yes it is possible the Met are lying. There have been multiple FOIs in the recent past where police forces have lied about this kind of thing. Aston Villa policing being one of the most obvious examples. It isn't particularly relevant to this case though but, given the massive changes in policing over the last few decades, it is generally wise to be cautious. This is why the IOPC exists and has been so critical of the Met.

Re: London Police Deploy Facial Recognition at Protest for First Time

#132

Post by graemep »

ben_w wrote: post #128
graemep wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reform turned down a $100m donation from musk to avoid Tommy Robinson I assume the £5m did not come with similar strings attached. The Green Party is now a lot more racist. Have you not read of the comments coming out of people withing the party, particularly its newly elected local councillors? IMO Labour are more subtle, but are as racist as Reform. They use race to attack politicians in other parties - they portra…

All of them can be racist, but are you sure it is useful (or independently, accurate) to say they're the same? While Reform technically didn't exist at the time Farage had his "Breaking Point" poster and all it echoed from the mid 1900s, Farage was very much responsible for it and he literally owned Reform until very recently.

I do not think they are the same, but right now I think the Greens the worst, and Reform about the same as Labour. I also think labour attitudes have more influence on their policy and wider culture so are more dangerous, because they come wrapped in claims to be be anti-racist.

There are also smaller groups that are worse: Restore and the EDL.

My real problem is with people who equate Reform with racism which is dangerous for two reasons. It gives racists on the "left" a free pass, and it ignores smaller but nasty groups on the "right". My biggest concerns are the Greens (who are likely to win a lot of sears in the next parliament), antisemitic independents, and Restore Britain who won all the seats the stood for (albeit in the same area) in the recent local government elections.

Also an underlying attitude that it is OK to be racist about some particular group, or people in the wrong political parties.

Re: London Police Deploy Facial Recognition at Protest for First Time

#133

Post by KaiserPro »

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm wrote: post #115
KaiserPro wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ever since Zia Yusuf joined The same one that threatening concentration camps in areas that don't vote for them? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c362e9p385yo Farage is not the most extreme in his party. Sadly.

Ironic. You are admitting that you yourself don't want to be near these people who are going to get put in detention centres (who would probably otherwise be free).

Can you please explain to me how you managed to divine my preference for immigrants from my post?

I would gently point out that if the immigration system worked like it used to, then we wouldn't need large amounts of detention centres. For two years it was illegal to process asylum claims. This meant that the backlog stacked up, costing a fuck tonne of cash.

More egregiously instead of sorting the problem. Various Home secretaries chose politics rather than building systems to track and efficiently process claims.

Detention centres are a massive sign of failure. I don't want them anywhere, I want my money to be spent on sorting the problem not showboating how cruel we are to people we don't like. (Which I would point out is directly against biblical teachings)

Re: London Police Deploy Facial Recognition at Protest for First Time

#134

Post by KaiserPro »

graemep wrote: post #124
KaiserPro wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There has been no violence at any of the previous marches iirc. His last protest was in september, it was pretty violent. 26 police officers were injured. Tommy robison has the advantage here in that its not illegal to express public support for him and his march, unlike palestine action where its very much illegal to do so (hence why there are >2000 arrests) > they have banned 11 people from getting visas because…

> His last protest was in september, it was pretty violent. 26 police officers were injured. Given the number of people involved, that is a pretty low level of violence. > unlike palestine action where its very much illegal to do so (hence why there are >2000 arrests) Specifically the arrests were for supporting a group banned as a terrorist group. I am opposed to that law, but its important to be clear why they were…

> That is just £75 a year per person

I was of that opinion, alas it was not £300k for 4000, it was £300k _per_ person. double checking again to make sure I am not talking bollocks the spread is 100k-450k per person depending on how you calculate (ie total cost or ignoring upper bounds on people being processed)

the NAO says it was expensive: https://www.nao.org.uk/press-releases/the-costs-of-the-uk-rw... Migrant observatory says more expensive: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries...

Its was an exceedingly badly designed policy, that meant that it was illegal to process any asylum claims outside of sending people to rwanda. So the actual cost is even higher, because we had to find a fuck tonne of temporary accommodation. Even worse was that we were sending people who were granted asylum to rwanda, not people who failed.

It prioritised optics over solving the problem.

hence my anger.

> Why not send people who are clearly from a safe country back immediately?

because it was illegal to process any claims until the Rwanda scheme was up and running. At its height, there could only be 4000 people processed.

My friend, I think we both want the same thing, We want fair and legal processing of migrants. We want to make sure that those in need are offered compassion and care, those that take the piss, sent packing.

An entire class of commentator and politician decided that performance was more important than delivery, and we end up where we are. The _most_ annoying thing is that it drives a wedge between people who would otherwise normally agree.

Re: London Police Deploy Facial Recognition at Protest for First Time

#135

Post by nailer »

graemep wrote: post #120
KaiserPro wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Keep is mind the UK left is aligned with Islam The Left has a fascination with Palestine, not islam. People who push the "the left love poltical islam" are usally trying to sell you that London is a wasteland, or that white people can't speak in public

Depends how you interpret "aligned with" and "Islam". They "left" has formed alliances with Islamist extremists so i think the "aligned with" bit is accurate. The "Islam" is inaccurate and conflates Islamism with Islam. Most British Muslims are not extremist nutcases, and there are plenty on the "right" too - numerous Conservatives, some in Reform (e.g. Zia Yusuf), etc.

[flagged]

Re: London Police Deploy Facial Recognition at Protest for First Time

#138

Post by graemep »

KaiserPro wrote: post #134
graemep wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> His last protest was in september, it was pretty violent. 26 police officers were injured. Given the number of people involved, that is a pretty low level of violence. > unlike palestine action where its very much illegal to do so (hence why there are >2000 arrests) Specifically the arrests were for supporting a group banned as a terrorist group. I am opposed to that law, but its important to be clear why they were…

> That is just £75 a year per person I was of that opinion, alas it was not £300k for 4000, it was £300k _per_ person. double checking again to make sure I am not talking bollocks the spread is 100k-450k per person depending on how you calculate (ie total cost or ignoring upper bounds on people being processed) the NAO says it was expensive: https://www.nao.org.uk/press-releases/the-costs-of-the-uk-rw... Migrant obse…

Ok, £300k per person is ridiculously expensive.

With regard to sending people back to safe countries immediately, I do not mean as part of the Rwanda scheme, but in general. i.e. if someone from a country that is known to be safe claims asylum why not just immediately refuse them?

I agree what the vast majority of people want is a fair and efficient system. I think there are two things going on as well as the focus on optics rather than reality. One is that politicians contempt for the hoi polloi is such that they interpret any opposition to immigration as racist. The reality is that it is a lot more nuanced and most people are opposed to some immigration, not all immigration (e.g. skilled vs unskilled, legal vs illegal, etc.). The current government is very proud of having reduced immigration by reducing the number of skilled workers and students entering the country! The other thing is that it is a useful distraction from other issues and a scapegoat.

Re: London Police Deploy Facial Recognition at Protest for First Time

#139

Post by graemep »

nailer wrote: post #135
graemep wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends how you interpret "aligned with" and "Islam". They "left" has formed alliances with Islamist extremists so i think the "aligned with" bit is accurate. The "Islam" is inaccurate and conflates Islamism with Islam. Most British Muslims are not extremist nutcases, and there are plenty on the "right" too - numerous Conservatives, some in Reform (e.g. Zia Yusuf), etc.

[flagged]

> 46% of British Muslims openly admit support for Hamas

Your link says 25% hold a favourable view of Hamas. This is lower than the percentage that have an unfavourable view.

As your link says "substantial minorities holding views directly hostile to the liberal democratic order" which confirms my claim that most British Muslims do not.

"with younger British Muslims more radical than their parents rather than less"

Which IMO is a problem - and a direct result of multiple bad policies.

That entire article is heavily biased. For example: "British Hindus and Sikhs rank among the most economically successful and socially integrated minorities in the country. Polling consistently shows low antisemitism, near-zero sympathy for Islamic extremism"

Hindus and Sikhs are have no sympathy of Islamic extremism? How astonishing!

it is full of unfounded claims and assumptions too:

"Parallel social structures have emerged in cities and towns across the country, with Sharia councils operating outside the British legal system".

That is nonsense. You might as well accuse Jews and Catholics of the same: e.g. through operating their own marriage tribunals.

"The Pew Research Forum’s mid-range projection has the Muslim share of the British population reaching 17.2 percent by 2050 under continued high-migration assumptions."

So they get 17.2% under an extreme set of assumptions.

Re: London Police Deploy Facial Recognition at Protest for First Time

#140

Post by graemep »

KaiserPro wrote: post #133
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironic. You are admitting that you yourself don't want to be near these people who are going to get put in detention centres (who would probably otherwise be free).

Can you please explain to me how you managed to divine my preference for immigrants from my post? I would gently point out that if the immigration system worked like it used to, then we wouldn't need large amounts of detention centres. For two years it was illegal to process asylum claims. This meant that the backlog stacked up, costing a fuck tonne of cash. More egregiously instead of sorting the problem. Various Ho…

> Which I would point out is directly against biblical teachings

Which politicians do you expect to follow Biblical teachings? As far as I can see all of the main are fundamentally opposed to Biblical teachings. Which politician can you imagine giving all they have to the poor, for example :)

> Various Home secretaries chose politics rather than building systems to track and efficiently process claims.

That is true. The system is a complete mess, highly inefficient, and ineffective in accurately assessing claims.

> Can you please explain to me how you managed to divine my preference for immigrants from my post

Maybe not you, but as I said in another comment it has made it awkward for some - the Green party in particular have been made to look hypocritical.

Post reply on HN