Britain 2009 (are we in a police state?)

[FridgeMagnet]

There just isn't any point in the question "are we living in a police state?" The term can always be argued - I'm sure that there are people in North Korea who will say "no this isn't a police state" - and it allows people to avoid having to address uncomfortable questions by arguing it.

It's not even a very good lead-in to a discussion about encroachment on civil liberties, because if you say "we're living in a police state! Look at legislation X Y and Z" then people will just say "your argument is basically bollocks because we're not living in a police state so piss off, I'm not listening to you".

 

[Azrael]

Charging suspects isn't necessary to break up demonstrations or quell criticism though, is it?

No, but it is necessary if the police are supposed to have carte blance, which is part and parcel of the police state. (A police "above normal law" and all that.) PACE and its like has made our police are simultaneously overmighty and impotent. Intimidating demonstrators, they can do if they're so minded; bringing crooks to book, no. An achievement, I suppose.

Yes, the police have excessive powers, but attached is an equally excessive bureaucracy (read the PACE codes? ). As CyberRose rightly says, we have a fiercely independent press, and attacks on the government. A police state has a specific meaning -- a state with a politicised police used to systematically crush descent -- and while we may be at the beginning of that road, we're no where close to the end of it. Just look at how China reacts to people typing "democracy" into Google to see a true police state. (Which I guess is FridgeMagnet's point, but there is a fundamental difference.)

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

We are not a police state but the direction of travel is very bad. The fact that "the man in the street" would "laugh" at the suggestion says as much about how politically neutured the GB public often is as it does about the facts.

 

[Azrael]

The fact that "the man in the street" would "laugh" at the suggestion says as much about how politically neutured the GB public often is as it does about the facts.

I'd certainly agree with that!

 

[fela fan]

I thought a 'police state' was less about the police and much more about what the state can do to you. The police are just the agents, it is the state that is all powerful.

One thing to think about is how much and frequently people's lives are now determined by what the computer says can happen or can't happen. Those operating the computer just say they can't do it becasue the computer won't let them.

Also to consider is the thousands of new laws and rules and regulations that have appeared in british life in the last decade or so.

Technology in general is overtaking the human capacity, or need, to think for themselves. Rules and regs are telling us this is what we must do or must not do, and if we don't agree we will be hit with our freedom or a huge hole in our already debt-ridden pockets.

Like all language, terms like 'police state' are unfortunate, because people immediately summon up their existing understanding of what it is (eg. nazis, burma, communism), and then seeing britain doesn't fit that, end of thinking.

The country for years now has been moving into a horrible nasty version of humanity. The freedoms and fun and spontaneity of life are being sucked out of people's souls at alarming pace. Instead laws and security and terrorism have become the bywords.

It is becoming a truly ugly society, and more and more resembles 1984 in terms of people no longer thinking for themselves, or acting freely. Just coz the police aren't knocking on your door at night (and i guess that is actually already happening, but not to your 'average' person yet), doesn't mean your society is not broken.

Britain is zooming into a society where the state governs nearly all actions and behaviour. Call it what you want, or better still, don't call it anything. That just shuts down debate. Describe what's going on, and then see if you like it.

 

[Azrael]

I thought a 'police state' was less about the police and much more about what the state can do to you.

Partly, but so far as I understand the specific meaning, it's a state that employs police powers to systematically crush dissent. There's different types of legal abuses: they shouldn't be lumped together under the catch-all "police state". If the police are acting in a normal criminal capacity, you have a draconian justice system, but not a police state.

I'm as guilty as anyone of using the term "police state" loosely, and I doubt the system's motives make much difference to the victims of said state, but I'm trying to be precise now, 'cause if I'm inaccurate authoritarians can say "see, we're not crushing dissent, no police state" and they effectively mask what they are doing.

The example of a young man being held for a week under the Terrorism Act comes, depressingly, to mind. Tony Blair answered the cries of "police state!" with the accurate point that it wasn't as the press were free to talk about it. That the young man had no means of redress or compensation was ignored by Mr Blair, but the method of attack helped him.

 

[fela fan]

Partly, but so far as I understand the specific meaning, it's a state that employs police powers to systematically crush dissent. There's different types of legal abuses: they shouldn't be lumped together under the catch-all "police state". If the police are acting in a normal criminal capacity, you have a draconian justice system, but not a police state.

But there is hardly ever any dissent in britain! There is nothing to crush.

But i also argued against the use of the term 'police state', because as you say it's most difficult to persuade the average person that such a thing exists in britain when images of nazis and the old soviet pop into people's heads, and, rightly or wrongly, this is not the britain they see.

However, whatever it is called, in my opinion the time is more than ripe for important discussions about where the country is headed. Because laws, rules, regulations, and massive interference by the state are the default these days.

The other thing that some have pointed out is that the apparatus of a 'police state' is apparent everywhere you look. So just because it's not one now, the near future may provide one. Orwell, british, could see such a thing happening for our nation. It's happened elsewhere in history, are the british immune?


I should add that if dissent did begin to occur, then this apparatus would already be in place to do the crushing!

 

[fela fan]

But here is jack straw talking a pile of nonsense, denying claims of a police state. Judging by just about all the comments at the end of his article, guardian readers don't agree with him!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/27/freedom-of-information-straw

Some of the stuff he writes there is too amazing for words.

 

[TomPaine]

Cyberose> You want "numbers" eh? Which ones, government sponsored studies ?

I've found some fairly interesting number reported in the news and parliament which are a bit of an eye opener

1997 - 2006 - 3000 new criminal offences introduced.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-offences-created-Tony-Blair-came-power.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...nce-for-every-day-spent-in-office-412072.html

From the Indie:

The 3,000-plus offences have been driven on to the statute book by an administration that has faced repeated charges of meddling in the everyday lives of citizens, from restricting freedom of speech to planning to issue identity cards to all adults.

In total, the Government has brought in 3,023 offences since May 1997. They comprise 1,169 introduced by primary legislation - debated in Parliament - and 1,854 by secondary legislation such as statutory instruments and orders in council.

Jan 2006 - 100 people a day stopped under anti-Terrorism legislation
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...e-a-day-under-new-antiterror-laws-524447.html

Feb 2008 - From parliament:

Surveillance
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were under surveillance by criminal justice agencies in the UK at the most recent date for which figures are available. [186913]

Mr. McNulty: Figures in relation to surveillance are published in the annual report of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner, a copy of which is in the House Library. Law enforcement agencies were granted
19 Feb 2008 : Column 588W
some 16,651 directed surveillance and 350 intrusive authorisations during the period 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007, the most recent period for which figures are available. Figures for intelligence agency use of these powers are not published in the interests of national security.

11th feb 2009 - 180,000 people stopped under Terrorism legislation:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ple-draconian-laws-255-arrested.html?ITO=1490

http://www.petertatchell.net/civil-liberties/abusingantiterrolaws.htm

From the government website: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/terrorism-and-the-law/

 

[Azrael]

The other thing that some have pointed out is that the apparatus of a 'police state' is apparent everywhere you look. So just because it's not one now, the near future may provide one. Orwell, british, could see such a thing happening for our nation. It's happened elsewhere in history, are the british immune?

Of course not. I agree, the apparatus is emerging; the potential for a police state is there. But until the police are used to systematically crush political dissent, it remains unrealised.

The litmus test will come with a serious assault on jury trial. No police state could co-exist with the jury system. (Although Imperial Russia admittedly came close.) This is why any attempt to "limit" it must be opposed uncompromisingly, and further, a campaign to widen and strengthen it must be waged by the likes of Liberty.

Ironically, the recent action closest to a "police state" was the arrest and trial of Nicholas Griffin and Mark Collett for "hate speech". Some reports had officers saying the order came from "high up", and I strongly suspect they were tried because their odious party is a threat to Labour in the polls. Yet most people who cry "police state" would have been all for their conviction.

 

[Fruitloop]

Surveillance state would be a much more appropriate term. Why has this little island got a quarter of the world's CCTV? Why is the government, having been told by Europe that its DNA database of innocent people and a million children is unjustifiable, looking for a way to get round the ruling rather than asking questions about its own behaviour?

 

[Fruitloop]

Incidentally (and unsurprisingly) I completely disagree about the press. They are happy to attack individual politicians or side up with one parliamentary party, but when it comes to important issues that genuinely challenge the ruling consensus they are almost entirely useless.

 

[Teddy Picker]

CCTV cameras aren't looking at anything anybody wouldn't be looking at anyway. That is to say, they're in public places, and it's not like you've got anything to hide in such places. And I'm glad they're there. I got mugged last year and they got caught on camera.

That being said, I always check public loo's for peep holes. But that's because I once watched Scary Movie and it scared me.

Perhaps it depends where in the UK you live that you'd think we're in a police state. For the record I voted no, because I see no evidence of it. At least, we're no different from other countries, like America and Australia. Both of which I've lived in for an extended period of time. Also France.
And I pretty much agree with CyberRose.

And I'm from' north tha nos.

 

[Azrael]

Surveillance state would be a much more appropriate term.

Thank you, that's just what I was looking for. The government wants to turn Britain into a panopticon. That is, obviously, an essential component of a police state. (Although it should be noted that the archetypal police state, Nazi Germany, had a tiny number of Gestapo. It relied on informants to work.)

As for the press, I agree that they ignore fundamental issues, but the character attacks on politicians and the muckraking of their parties are just the sort of thing police states cannot tolerate. Critics who do tackle major issues, like Henry Porter, aren't thrown in the gulag: they're treated to e-mail exchanges with Mr Blair. (The worse fate is, admittedly, debatable.)

 

[Azrael]

CCTV cameras aren't looking at anything anybody wouldn't be looking at anyway. That is to say, they're in public places. And I'm glad they're there. I got mugged last year and they got caught on camera.

I've been mugged as well (okay, attempted mugging, we ran away from each other after a nasty and pointless fight) and "CCTV" was useless as a) it was dark, and b) Mr Mugger had the regulation hoodie on. A patrolling constable or the right to carry a weapon would have been of far more use to me.

Surveillance cameras systematically record your movements in a way a matrix of beat police cannot hope to do. Seeing and cataloging are very different things.

We were far safer when police walked the streets and had the ability and inclination to swiftly prosecute suspects. Surveillance cameras are another example of this false choice between liberty and security we keep hearing about.

 

[Teddy Picker]

Oh, well they worked for me. Unfortunate that.

I'm also a bit of a show-off, so I kind of like having cameras watching me. And I pity the poor sods who have to watch all that footage. They have to sit there watching me air guitar. I wonder if talent scouts for Stars in Their Eyes use it...

But just to put things into perspective: I'm living in Australia now, there aren't as many CCTV cameras, but there's also not many police officers on the beat. Far and noticeably less than my old town in good old Blighty. And towns here are tiny too!

Of course, everybody's too drunk to mug each other or have a few illegal drugs, so it's all cool.

 

[Azrael]

And I pity the poor sods who have to watch all that footage.

That's the practical flaw in surveillance cameras: there's masses of footage to wade through. This fetish for technology ignores the inevitable human element: all spy cameras do is distance the person from the crime. Perhaps the panopticon will never happen because the government won't be able to find enough people to sit around watching endless videos of petty crime in the hope of catching a glimpse inside the hoodie. I imagine an outbreak of air guitar would be a welcome diversion!

 

[EddyBlack]

Oh, well they worked for me. Unfortunate that.

I'm also a bit of a show-off, so I kind of like having cameras watching me. And I pity the poor sods who have to watch all that footage. They have to sit there watching me air guitar. I wonder if talent scouts for Stars in Their Eyes use it...

But just to put things into perspective: I'm living in Australia now, there aren't as many CCTV cameras, but there's also not many police officers on the beat. Far and noticeably less than my old town in good old Blighty. And towns here are tiny too!

Of course, everybody's too drunk to mug each other or have a few illegal drugs, so it's all cool.

I think surveillance cameras are irrelavent here, in that I do not think they trample or restrict civil liberties. I have no problem with them either, and I think they have a place for law enforcement in busy public areas for incidents like muggings. And that is for the police CCTV, private CCTV is even less of an issue.

 

[Azrael]

I think surveillance cameras are irrelavent here, in that I do not think they trample or restrict civil liberties. I have no problem with them either, and I think they have a place for law enforcement in busy public areas for incidents like muggings. And that is for the police CCTV, private CCTV is even less of an issue.

I have little problem with private surveillance cameras, but a network of government-controlled spy cameras has the potential to be abused to snoop on and catalogue people the state doesn't like as they go about their day-to-day business. If the government got its act together, it's possible to track people's movements and activities near-totally. That's a terrifying notion and one that should be resisted by civil libertarians.

 

[Fruitloop]

I think surveillance cameras are irrelavent here, in that I do not think they trample or restrict civil liberties. I have no problem with them either, and I think they have a place for law enforcement in busy public areas for incidents like muggings. And that is for the police CCTV, private CCTV is even less of an issue.

Doesn't the quantity tell you something about what is going on in a more general way though? Why is the UK the most spied-upon nation on earth? It's not the most criminal or the most densely populated, so what explanation can you come up with for the huge preponderance of snooping here?

 

[EddyBlack]

I have little problem with private surveillance cameras, but a network of government-controlled spy cameras has the potential to be abused to snoop on and catalogue people the state doesn't like as they go about their day-to-day business. If the government got its act together, it's possible to track people's movements and activities near-totally. That's a terrifying notion and one that should be resisted by civil libertarians.

I don't think that is what high street police CCTV cameras are for though. You could argue that the 'potential' is there for such a society in the future because the technology exists. But I don't think the government is going to stealthily implement a hi-tech panopticon over the next few years and take us all unawares. Police CCTV is a law enforcement tool, allowing the police to check back to the time of incidents such as Teddy Picker describes. It enables the identification and prosectution of the culprit far more easily and certainly than would otherwise be possible. I cannot see any likelihood at the moment of what you describe, therefore I am not concerned about them.

 

[Azrael]

I cannot see any likelihood at the moment of what you describe, therefore I am not concerned about them.

Well that's your call to make, of course, but you agree the potential is there, and that's what worries me.

Yes, surveillance cameras are a crime-fighting tool right now. But as Fruitloop has said, they've got us acclimatised to being spied on by the state. What'll take the state down the road to police state: perhaps the assumption that it has a right to snoop on its citizens. Panopticon measures can be causative.

Personally I think a comprehensive police beat system (not paramilitary coppers patrolling on foot in selected areas, usually responsive to high crime and later withdrawn) and the abolition of PACE would do far more to defeat crime than a grainy video of hooded yobbos. A camera can't intervene; it can only record the law's failure for use at a later time.

 

[TomPaine]

and the abolition of PACE would do far more to defeat

Azrael PACE is the speel the police give when they arrest somebody right?

 

[EddyBlack]

Well that's your call to make, of course, but you agree the potential is there, and that's what worries me.

Yes, surveillance cameras are a crime-fighting tool right now. But as Fruitloop has said, they've got us acclimatised to being spied on by the state. What'll take the state down the road to police state: perhaps the assumption that it has a right to snoop on its citizens. Panopticon measures can be causative.

I don't think it is spying or snooping though. The police are allowed to stand on the street and watch out for muggers; by the same rationale police cameras are allowed to watch the street with the added benefit that recorded incidents can be looked at retrospectively, and in theory they also allow a quick response from police to an incident in progress which sounds like what happened in Teddy Picker's case.

I don't agree that there is a lurking danger that police CCTV cameras are becoming part of some police state panopticon. If this technology was beggining to move in that direction leading to such a thing becoming a realistic possibility, we would see it coming. That is why I am not concerned about these cameras at the present time.

 

[Azrael]

Azrael PACE is the speel the police give when they arrest somebody right?

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It's an act of Parliament that regulates how police treat people in custody. The caution ("You don't have to say anything, but it may harm your defence ..." etc) preceded PACE by a long time -- a version shows up in a Sherlock Holmes novel! -- and I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the bureaucracy that kicks in when a suspect is arrested, the root of most of the "form filling" police complain about, and the reason, along with the CPS, why our justice system is so grindingly slow.

PACE also introduced dangerous powers of warrantless search, police bail and prolonged detention without charge on very little evidence. It threatens the innocent while protecting the guilty. It's hard to think of a more useless and counter-productive way of regulating the police.

Suspects' rights can be adequately protected with habeas corpus, the right to silence and the presence of a lawyer during questioning. If the police weren't wasting hours complying with pettifogging PACE codes of practice they could be out doing something useful. Then we wouldn't need surveillance cameras to take their place.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I don't agree that there is a lurking danger that police CCTV cameras are becoming part of some police state panopticon. If this technology was beggining to move in that direction leading to such a thing becoming a realistic possibility, we would see it coming. That is why I am not concerned about these cameras at the present time.

Certain public areas in London most definitely are already covered by a panopticon - I have tried, as an experiment, staying out of the field of view of every camera, and it is impossible. And some people seem to consider that that level of surveillance is desirable in other areas too.

It isn't that there is no panopticon or it is impossible - it's that people think that panopticons are okay.

 

[Azrael]

I don't think it is spying or snooping though. The police are allowed to stand on the street and watch out for muggers; by the same rationale police cameras are allowed to watch the street with the added benefit that recorded incidents can be looked at retrospectively, and in theory they also allow a quick response from police to an incident in progress which sounds like what happened in Teddy Picker's case.

The key words are "in theory". All too often the surveillance feed is unwatched, or the police not able to get there in time. If the police were pounding a nearby beat, they could be there a lot quicker.

Also, there's the obvious qualitative difference between a human eye and a camera that I noted above. Hundreds of police can't link up to track someone's movements, and don't keep a record.

I don't agree that there is a lurking danger that police CCTV cameras are becoming part of some police state panopticon. If this technology was beggining to move in that direction leading to such a thing becoming a realistic possibility, we would see it coming. That is why I am not concerned about these cameras at the present time.

Even leaving aside the normalisation of being spied on, camera technology is constantly evolving. You can already be tracked if someone has a mind to do it. It'll only get easier.

The psychological consequences of spy cameras may be worse. In Ilford there's now signs that read, without a hint of irony, "WE ARE WATCHING YOU", with a pair of eyes looking down. Now that's scary!

 

[Barking_Mad]

..........

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Act 2000 creates a legal framework for the use of surveillance and human operatives to monitor and infiltrate the activities of groups subject to ‘investigation’. It is directed towards those involved with ‘serious crime’ and ‘terrorism’. Actions, or threats of action, by a group or person are classed as ‘terrorism’ under Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 if:

* the action falls within subsection (2); and
* the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause; and
* the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public.

Terrorist action is defined under subsection (2) as action that:

* involves serious violence against a person, or
* involves serious damage to property, or
* endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action, or
* creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
* is designed to seriously interfere with or to seriously disrupt an electronic system.

Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the objective of ‘influencing government’ could class certain types of action, particularly where members of a movement engage in direct action, as terrorism. It:

* looks to cover acts that may not in themselves be violent but which nonetheless but have a significant impact on modern life.

Under the terms of the Act, only the objective of changing the mind of government is required.This is a very broad definition. Many activists believe that it strikes at the heart of one of the core principles within democratic society - that of freedom of expression. The Act provides no clear guidance on what types of public expression are to be permitted - only on those which are to be investigated as demonstrating potentially ‘terrorist’ intent.

 

[fela fan]

Incidentally (and unsurprisingly) I completely disagree about the press. They are happy to attack individual politicians or side up with one parliamentary party, but when it comes to important issues that genuinely challenge the ruling consensus they are almost entirely useless.

Maybe more than almost entirely useless.

They are part of the game.

 

[fela fan]

We were far safer when police walked the streets and had the ability and inclination to swiftly prosecute suspects. Surveillance cameras are another example of this false choice between liberty and security we keep hearing about.

Yes. And it leads me to thinking about another aspect of a 'surveillance' state, which i too agree is a good term.

Why are the police no longer walking the streets so to speak? Where are they and what are they doing? Is their time partly taken up by dealing with mountains of forms and things to fill in? It seems to me that britain now spends half its energies reporting on what it's doing and how well it is realising 'targets'.