141–150 of 159 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ever walked through the streets of London after essentially any rally? They all end in violence.
Are you serious? This is so ignorant it's unbelievable. There are gazillions of marches that have ended without incident.
I'm staunchly pro-Palestinian, despise Tommy Robinson and still think this is not a good thing. The UK has been draconian with its anti-free speech and surveillance. Even if you hate what this guy stands for (I do), it's only a matter of time before these techniques are used against causes you do stand for. Somehow I don't think Tommy Robinson would take such an approach to say the classification of Palestine Action…
[flagged]
No, you got it wrong. They acted like people should act during a genocide.
I'm old enough to remember when my colleagues were vigourously expressing concern about the potential for Oyster cards to be used to track who was protesting where. What remains astounding about the UK is how few people benefit from this enormous scale privacy invasion. David Cameron, while leader of the opposition, managed to get his bike stolen twice, and neither time did CCTV being literally everywhere help to fin…
This news from the UK is concerning and the UK is slowly turning into a dystopia but still your reasoning is flawed. The cameras are there to discourage crime and for use in court as evidence. Solving a crime still requires time and energy. Policing is a resources game. So of course petty crimes are still going to be committed because it’s resource intensive to have someone monitor all the cameras. That is until it i…
I'm old enough to remember when my colleagues were vigourously expressing concern about the potential for Oyster cards to be used to track who was protesting where. What remains astounding about the UK is how few people benefit from this enormous scale privacy invasion. David Cameron, while leader of the opposition, managed to get his bike stolen twice, and neither time did CCTV being literally everywhere help to fin…
I'm old enough to remember when my colleagues were vigourously expressing concern about the potential for Oyster cards to be used to track who was protesting where. What remains astounding about the UK is how few people benefit from this enormous scale privacy invasion. David Cameron, while leader of the opposition, managed to get his bike stolen twice, and neither time did CCTV being literally everywhere help to fin…
There isn’t the resources to watch all of this cctv. Sure someone could spend weeks watching all the feeds in the city to track the thief down. But the cost quickly exceeds the value of the bike. Something that’s changing with computer video and AI powered video search tools. I’m very in two minds about it. Being able to solve bike thefts would be great, but a lot of evil could come from a system that actually can mo…
Precisely. So why exactly did they deploy so much of it when they had no way of using it? This isn't new, it's been the case since like 2005 that people walking around London generate more CCTV footage time than real time.
There was another farce when they had that second round of attempted bombings on the Underground and despite having very clear video of it happening they absolutely struggled to deal with it ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_July_2005_London_attempted_... "described by the Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir Ian Blair as "the greatest operational challenge ever faced" by the Met"), leading to the whole shooting of the Brazilian at Stockwell incident.
All this surveillance demonstrably isn't a deterrent to actual criminals or would be terrorists in the slightest.
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…
The reason it "cost" so much is because it was never used. You have confused stack with a flow. Basic error. In addition, the expectation was that it would be a deterrent because people are coming here primarily for economic reasons. The reason the government believed this to be the case is because the same thing has been tried in other countries and worked, Australia did this and now (in a turn of events that will presumably shock you) people are complaining that the cost of the deterrent is too large...because no-one tries to get there by boat anymore.
We have to find temporary accommodation anyway. Rwanda changed absolutely nothing about that policy, I am not sure how anyone could think otherwise. It is enshrined in our law functionally: if someone comes here illegally, we have to house them in a hotel and then we have to provide them with a council house if their claim is successful.
One of the bills, theoretically, created the legal basis to detain anyone who comes to the UK by irregular means. However, and despite the usual noisy crowd saying it was the end of democracy, there is no functional capacity within the Home Office to effectuate this...quite simply, there is isn't the administrative capacity (or, with Labour, the political will). This power exists and is completely unused. We are also unable to return people which makes indefinite detention of 300-400k people at a minimum challenging.
But this act is used to detain some illegal migrants in prison in some cases. Usually this is terrorism-related but, I believe, this has also been used in the many cases of sexual assault.
It was not illegal to process claims whilst the Rwanda scheme was running. One, it was never started, it was due to start after the last election if the Tories ran. Two, it did not change the status of people arriving, the Tories put substantial resources into the Home Office to reduce the backlog (one of the issues here is productivity because so many claims are accepted and there is a large industry dedicated to helping claimants, average processing time is 14 days...it is very slow).
Labour policy is to create a wedge because, to be frank, reducing immigration is devastating for a party that relies so heavily on voters who feel a kinship with the vast majority of illegal migrants. In some areas, Labour majority is almost all this demographic, and almost all illegal migrants make up this same demographic. We are speeding down the path to balkanization, this happened under the last Labour government and has happened under this one. There is a long historical record here of this happening in other countries that people are determined to ignore. One of the reasons why Labour went for student visas immediately, in addition to the massive level of fraud, is because people from these countries do not vote for Labour in the UK. Leaving Pakistan off the list, when it is a country that also does not accept returns and has huge number of fraudulent student visa was very obvious (and btw, some UK unis no longer accept students from Pakistant because of the fraud...this is exceptional). That is the wedge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
From the article: > a pro-Palestinian march marking “Nakba Day,” happening in London on the same day with an estimated 30,000 attendees, will not face the same biometric surveillance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. It's alright to do it when I don't like the person. Should a person I don't like really have rights, or privacy? Also, I'm sure that the people who don't like him like me, right?
> Should a person I don't like really have rights, or privacy? For a society striking a British balance between security and privacy, I'd say it's fair to require people with violent convictions to (a) register public protests they plan to attend and (b) consent to facial-recognition surveillance in public. (One could hash, locally store and potentially hardware enforce the restriction on the device level.) That does…
In the US, the constitutional amendment banning slavery makes an exception for people in prison; you can guess who gets imprisoned. I've read (can't confirm) that in the 1970s, Nixon's criminalization marijuana was intended for oppressing black people and left-wingers, who were the predominant users of it. Since then the US has used mass incarceration, partly a result of that War on Drugs policy. Also, long post-release probation periods are also used to control people; look up the rapper Meek Mill, for example. Most recently, authorities in many countries have found many reasons to arrest left-wing protestors such as pro-Palestinian activists, sometimes applying very serious charges.
I'm not writing here in favor of the causes Tommy Robinson, Reform UK, left-wingers, or pro-Palestinian protestors. I'm writing about freedom; we've long known that if you can take it from some, you can take it from anybody.
How do you allow the surveillance of the entire Tommy Robinson protest, or even just Robinson, and yet protect freedom? Are our freedoms lost forever if we are convicted once?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The policewoman they maimed with a sledgehammer wasn’t an individual? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c75kp15xz4yo