Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It looks as though we'll finally see some action on the widespread use of CCTV, use of clamping, and the red tape that make volunteering by decent people complicated.


Article


The Bill


I especially welcome (whilst not the most important aspect of the bill) the move to outlaw clamping on private land. Also the CBRC system needs completely overhualing. I can not cope as it is with the number of applications.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/15737-protection-of-freedoms-bill/
Share on other sites

It is an excellent start - I hope it evolves into something even better. On a couple of issues there seems to be a little fudging going on (I'd have taken RIPA away from councils altogether and S44 searches seem to have changed very little).


But there is some really good stuff in there. DNA retention being a real biggie.

The did some pretty serious damage over 13 years. Lots of damage.


As an example, back in 2001 some British plane-spotters were arrested in Greece. The British media were, rightly, appalled and said it was stupid. By 2010, both UK citizens and tourists were being detained in the UK for taking photos of buildings.


Then, of course, there were councils being allowed to snoop on people, innocent people's DNA being retained, the attempt to bring in the ID database, over 20% of the world's CCTV cameras installed in here the UK, the 'rumours and innuendo' database used for vetting staff and volunteers. The list goes on. Hey, they even threw an old man out of their own party conference using prevention of terror laws.


So, it may not ALL be down to Labour, but they sure as hell dumped an awful lot of our freedoms.

Loz, absolutely.


Under Labour, 'security'-related legislation and regulation just seemed to go through the roof. RIPA being a case in point. But there were hundreds, thousands of other security initiatives..


I finally gave up doing certain kinds of work when a certain government agency (unconnected to defence or security or anything like that, really really mundane) required me to fill out 22 or so pages of forms that included the requirement for me to provide information about my ancestors that I didn't even know myself and would have had to research extensively over weeks/months, internationally, and possibly with dead people; and then required further legal and financial investigations to be conducted by foreign government authorities because I had had the temerity to live abroad during my life; all of which information would take them some six+ months to process (by who knows how many people), they estimated... and all in order to attend their offices in Nottingham and conduct some interviews that they had commissioned, on a single day. The instructions they were acting on emanated from the Cabinet Office, and applied to all government departments, apparently. Though funnily enough, the Cabinet Office itself (on a visit at around the same time, similarly commissioned) proved to be free of such officiousness and wasting of tax-payers' funds. At which point I threw up my hands in incomprehension and despair. When the cost of conducting "security" is greater than the entire cost of a project; and when six-month cushions have to be built in to projects before you can even turn up, for projects that should be completed in less than two weeks, all in order to *rse-cover on "security", the whole system has really gone mad.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Thank you to those who have replied. Tho, with the exception of Sue's post, I find these comments bizarre and depressing - what dark confused times we live in. The tables outside the Blue Brick were in fact mostly within the cafe's curtilage. But there were complaints, and Dan the owner did not help himself in his reluctance to address the matter. What I find extraordinary here is the lack of any moral proportion: the nuisance there was relatively slight; and people were not being forced every passing minute into busy oncoming traffic. As to complaints. How is this situation not self-evident, for some hours, several evenings of every week. Would a diligent local authority need to receive a complaint? Must we prod Southwark to do anything, ever? And in fact, am I really alone in doubting Southwark Council's willingness to consider complaints and other feedback? Local governance is democratically deficient at every level in this country: a) Despite heroic 'social work' by some ward councillors, these foot soldiers are heavily managed by party apparats. b) Councils are governed by committees which exclude most councillors. c) Is it fanciful to imagine that senior local-authority officers tend to have, shall we say, their own agendas? Sally Eva, how is 'Lee Scoresby' not my name..? 'First mate' has the hopeful idea that "The EDT will have to start managing its clientele better." The EDT is a money-making operation. (Companies House lists one officer, Steven Michael Kenee.) The EDT would be happy to have its customers all up the hill, round the roundabout and in your front garden if they could get away with it. This is why companies have to operate under rules, and these rules need to be enforced. Where to begin with these other toxic little reflexes, all ignoring the actual problem to which I refer - which is real, dangerous and preventable - and substituting something else. CPR Dave: The assumption that I am elderly. (And gee, CPR, what other phobias do you suffer from? People of colour? Gay or trans people? Immigrants? Red hair?) You affect to believe that my real wish is to deny "young people" the chance to "enjoy the local amenities." Sue answers you eloquently. How, ArchieCarlos is this "satire or ragebait."? I do surely find the situation angering. And how 'claresy' is my post and not the endangering of pedestrians the problem? In fact, further to Sue, one need not have either a disability or be carrying, pushing or caring for someone or something to have the legal and moral right to move freely on a public footpath. Yes, Jenijenjen [your 'real name', obvs], I have posted over a number of years. Say what you intend clearly about these previous posts, so that other readers can judge, rather than alluding to them obscurely as if they somehow invalidate the matter I raise here. Good grief. LS        
    • The thread I saw has not been closed.  It says that it’s been six months, and a new one could be made but that one had one of the vets from Neighbourhood Vets on giving her side of the story.  I think it’s a very appropriate place to link this report.
    • Perhaps, but in keeping with style and content of Lee's previous posts over the years Edit: prepositions changed. Makes a change from pronouns eh?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...